This article argues that in wars of choice or intervention, military powers must be legally obligated to compensate victims’ families in an adequate, timely, and just manner.

In Iraq, the United States (US) sometimes provides small amounts of voluntary made compensation payments to victims’ families who suffered from its military actions. But no norm or obligation exists within international human rights or international humanitarian law requiring a government to compensate foreign nationals innocently harmed. In the absence of an equitable law authorising foreign civilians to file combat related claims in the US, the US relies on ad hoc nominal payment programmes to win over local communities harmed as a result of an armed conflict. One of the main problems resulting from these programs is that no adequate guidelines exist and each unit takes different approaches, meaning that different victims receive disparate treatment.

Offering full compensation is imperative for moral and practical reasons. Borrowing from just war theory considerations, it claims that the conclusion of war cannot be rightful if civilians’ rights remain insecure and no legal mechanism exists for them to receive compensation. Furthermore, the author notes that if militaries abuse the civilian population by destroying property while raiding houses, or unintentionally killing and harming civilians, they may push the population to seek insurgent forces for shelter or assistance. Thus, positive treatment of civilians becomes imperative to strategic military interests.

The article recommends the creation of a permanent and standalone compensation programme which (i) allows military officers to make claim payments high enough to demonstrate genuine condolence and (ii) provides claimants with the possibility to appeal the initial decision.

‍