Financing reparations: debunking the myths

One of the key things we hear constantly is that reparations are unaffordable. States often understand that victims have a right to reparation, but see it as a possibly infinite amount of public expenditure. Because of this, governments are reluctant to begin putting reparation processes in motion – even if there is political will.

In addition to fulfilling victims’ rights, policymakers need to understand how important it is to fund post-conflict societies. Doing so delivers on several fronts; from increasing social cohesion and preventing conflict from recurring in the future, to developing a highly skilled workforce and building trust in institutions. Paying reparations is part of this – it isn’t a sunk cost we are talking about, but an investment in a country’s future.

At GSF we want to consolidate the experience there is globally to show paying reparations can be both feasible and affordable. In order to prioritise this issue, governments need to know it is possible – and that’s what we’re trying to promote.

Usually, it comes from state budgets. It can come from higher taxes, including those on specific actors or industries that may be linked to conflict itself – in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, 11 per cent of mining royalties must go to FONAREV, the national reparation fund. In other countries, it has been a combination of national budgets with foreign resources, including multilateral aid and loans, and philanthropy or private resources from individuals.

Again, it’s a question of political will. The postwar reparations fund in Sierra Leone brought together a mix of funding sources, including $4.5 million from the UN Peacebuilding Fund and a symbolic, yet significant, $246,000 from the government. Despite so many competing demands and a complete lack of national resources, this showed a commitment to recognising victims. We’re also starting to see more innovative funding models emerge – I'm thinking of repurposed assets or government issuance of social bonds.

One of the biggest myths is that reparations are just too expensive or financially unsustainable. While we need to be realistic and work with what is economically viable, we can still fulfil the right to reparation. We saw that in our interim reparative measures project in Türkiye – survivors asked to receive less compensation so that more people could be involved. It’s a beautiful illustration of the fact that it's not necessarily about the amount – although in an ideal world we’d want the amount to meaningfully change people’s lives.

Political will is also a barrier. Even when resources exist, there can be a reluctance to acknowledge the obligation to provide reparations, especially when doing so might imply responsibility for past or ongoing harms. All too often, this translates into inaction.There is also a technical knowledge gap. Policymakers simply haven’t been exposed to the full range of financing options available.

Lastly, I’d say that repurposing of the assets linked to perpetrators of human rights violations has historically been seen as unworkable, but that’s more about the lack of enabling legislation than a true impossibility. Asset recovery and return is already prevalent in the corruption space; should we not seek the same for the victims of the most egregious human rights violations?

One major area of opportunity is the growing momentum around asset repurposing. There’s a real window to capture significant financing for reparations by redirecting frozen or confiscated assets particularly in cases linked to corruption or gross human rights violations.   

Many perpetrators have squirreled away thousands of millions in countries across the world, and there is growing movement to repurpose these assets to the benefit of the victims of these perpetrators. In France, former Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's uncle, Rifaat al-Assad, had 90 million euros confiscated. The French government has put legislation in place to repurpose these proceeds of corruption to the benefit of the Syrian people. It’s a great example that we hope victims and survivors can capitalise on for future reparations.  

Ukraine is another good example of potential for asset repurposing for both reconstruction and financing for reparation for individual victims. There are over 300 billion euros of Russian State funds frozen globally – these assets are being held under sanctions to try and stop Russia from continuing its war of aggression against Ukraine. There is a push that the money should be used to pay reparations to Ukraine. The European Commission has given loans to Ukraine which will be repaid with proceeds from immobilised Russian State assets in the EU. Why not do the same to pay reparations to victims and survivors of this war? 

At the individual level, there is increasing interest in pursuing the proceeds of the sale of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea Football Club. This 2.5 billion GBP would make an immeasurable difference to the lives of survivors.