Could you please expound on the the EU argument of you can’t really break a law before it’s written. Also, if you were asked to provide a practical towards payment of reparations, how would it look like... and also, who exactly would be eligible for such payments?
Are the countries in possession of colonial loot in violation of any international laws?
Each of your questions could be a whole essay, haha! I love it! Will try to be brief:
1. OK, Imagine you smoke a cigarette in the park by your home every day for a year. Then you move to another city. 10 years later, your old town passes a law making smoking in parks illegal. They track you down in your new city and say: "You used to smoke in the park here 10 years ago, and the compounding litter has destroyed it. You owe us $10,000."
You'd say: "But it wasn't illegal when I was doing it! There was no law against it back then. You can't punish me retroactively for something that was perfectly legal at the time." Slavery wasn't illegal under international law when it was happening. Countries followed the laws of their time. The EU is saying: you can't go back and punish (or demand reparations from) countries for doing something that, at the time, was lawful (even if we now recognize it as morally horrific and legally prohibited). This principle is called non-retroactivity: laws don't apply backward in time.
2. The ICC has given reparations to large victim communities before through funds, so maybe something similar to that. But lots of difficulties mapping out the details, executing, etc
3. Theoretically African/Caribbean countries, but that's hugely contested too
4. Very controversial! Some say no because the looting wasn't illegal at the time. But those who say yes argue that CONTINUING possession violates human rights law. The recent returns we've seen (by eg France) are based on moral pressure not a breach of an international law.
So insightful!
Cheers!
Could you please expound on the the EU argument of you can’t really break a law before it’s written. Also, if you were asked to provide a practical towards payment of reparations, how would it look like... and also, who exactly would be eligible for such payments?
Are the countries in possession of colonial loot in violation of any international laws?
Each of your questions could be a whole essay, haha! I love it! Will try to be brief:
1. OK, Imagine you smoke a cigarette in the park by your home every day for a year. Then you move to another city. 10 years later, your old town passes a law making smoking in parks illegal. They track you down in your new city and say: "You used to smoke in the park here 10 years ago, and the compounding litter has destroyed it. You owe us $10,000."
You'd say: "But it wasn't illegal when I was doing it! There was no law against it back then. You can't punish me retroactively for something that was perfectly legal at the time." Slavery wasn't illegal under international law when it was happening. Countries followed the laws of their time. The EU is saying: you can't go back and punish (or demand reparations from) countries for doing something that, at the time, was lawful (even if we now recognize it as morally horrific and legally prohibited). This principle is called non-retroactivity: laws don't apply backward in time.
2. The ICC has given reparations to large victim communities before through funds, so maybe something similar to that. But lots of difficulties mapping out the details, executing, etc
3. Theoretically African/Caribbean countries, but that's hugely contested too
4. Very controversial! Some say no because the looting wasn't illegal at the time. But those who say yes argue that CONTINUING possession violates human rights law. The recent returns we've seen (by eg France) are based on moral pressure not a breach of an international law.