Explore the vast range of titles available.

Russia's illegal, brazen and cynical full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on February 24th, 2022, and is still ongoing at the time of this research (July 2023). The damages incurred by Ukraine and its citizens during the years of occupation of the territories and the war are calculated in millions, although it is difficult to definitively determine both the methodology and specific numbers. To restore justice, it seems much more important to define a fair, transparent, and understandable procedure for compensating the losses suffered by citizens and businesses as a result of these events. This is especially important in the context of the need to implement the goals of sustainable development, in particular, ensuring equal access to justice for all. The article is devoted to these and related issues. To determine the procedure for compensating losses and damages caused by the war, we first determined what exactly can be compensated and who can apply for compensation. These and other factors determine the peculiarities of the procedure for the restoration of rights and compensation for damage caused by the war in Ukraine. In searching for an answer to the researched question, we analyzed the current legislation of Ukraine and draft laws proposed to regulate relations related to compensation for damages. We also conducted a comprehensive analysis of concepts such as losses, damages, compensation, reparations, and reimbursement as defined in national legislation and international treaties. The generalization of the case law of national courts (more than 200 analyzed decisions of the courts of the first and appeal and cassation instances for the period from February 20, 2014 to March 1, 2023, examples of which are presented in the study) indicates the presence of various approaches of compensation for damage, in understanding how to restore the violated rights of citizens.

Abstract To address the challenges of institutional gaps in liability regimes, small sample data, and nonlinear regression in shipping accident damage compensation assessment, this study proposes Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Backpropagation (BP) neural network models and compares their performance in small sample scenarios. Using data from 17 typical shipping accidents (between 1991 and 2020) and seven key risk factors (e.g., leakage volume and gross tonnage), the models were built and optimized. The results indicate that SVR outperforms BP neural networks when evaluated using the root mean squared error and mean absolute error metrics. SVR's superior generalizability via structural risk minimization and kernel mapping makes it more effective for small sample nonlinear regression. Conversely, BP neural networks suffer from local optima trapping and parameter sensitivity, leading to lower prediction accuracy. This study offers a data-driven solution for rapid shipping accident compensation assessment and references for small sample machine learning applications.

In 1999, the Alliance mistakenly bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Around the same period, allegations were made regarding its involvement in human trafficking and forced prostitution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. A decade later, NATO airplanes hit a fuel truck causing significant civilian casualties in Kunduz, Afghanistan. After more than 60 years of existence and a track-record of more than 30 missions performed worldwide, it is surprising that there is still uncertainty on the scope and content of NATO's responsibility for wrongful conduct during its military operations. This timely book deals with the international responsibility of NATO during military operations. It examines, the status of the Alliance, the existence of international obligations and conditions of attribution of conduct in NATO.

This study is mainly focused on handling the causing non-contractual damage, achieving a theoretical analysis of its constituent components as fault, causal connection, unlawful act or omission and damage compensation. Non-contractual liability is provided by our civil code, defining it as at fault or without fault liability. Our country, as a country in transition needs legal investment and ist implementation into practice. One of the cases on which liability on damage compensation arises is the combination of the rights of persons, whose dignity has been infringed against the right that is explicitly sanctioned in the Constitution of the Republic of Albania, freedom of speech as well as thought, fundamental principles of law, but always without thereby infringing the dignity of a subject of law and and being faced with moral and material damages. In order to handle legally this issue as well as its civil legal consequences that threaten to influence on the entities that breach the law, but also their sensibilization. Hereafter I am handling the theoretical and legal way – the analysis of such a case, under legal - civil perspective.

The paper discusses over 10 years of experience (2009–2021) with dune development in a newly constructed coastal area in The Netherlands. The area (ca. 40 ha) was constructed by foreshore and beach nourishment and meant to compensate expected damage to existing dune vegetation, caused by nearby harbour extension and associated industrial activities. The development of the new dune was done applying the principles of ‘Building with Nature’, with as little human interference as possible. However, in the course of time several management measures were necessary to steer the vegetation succession in the right direction of the compensation targets. Dune development in natural aeolian coastal dunes differs from that in dunes built up from sea bottom sand. Before the compensation project there was little experience on how nourished marine sediments would affect the processes of sand transport, groundwater dynamics and vegetation development. After 10 years of development, the succession to the compensation targets is on its way. The project monitoring gave insights in the development of constructed dunes and in balancing between natural development and human intervention.

On March 23, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound and released over 250,000 barrels of crude oil, resulting in 1300 miles of oiled shoreline. The Exxon spill ignited a debate about the appropriate compensation for damages suffered, and among economists, a debate concerning the adequacy of methods to value public goods, particularly when the good in question has limited direct use, such as the pristine natural environment of the spill region. The efficacy of stated preference methods generally, and contingent valuation in particular, is no mere academic debate. Billions of dollars are at stake. An influential symposium appearing in this journal in 1994 provided arguments for and against the credibility of these methods, and an extensive research program published in academic journals has continued to this day. This paper assesses what occurred in this academic literature between the Exxon spill and the BP disaster. We will rely on theoretical developments, neoclassical and behavioral paradigms, empirical and experimental evidence, and a clearer elucidation of validity criteria to provide a framework for readers to ponder the question of the validity of contingent valuation and, more generally, stated preference methods.

This book focuses on the aftermath of World War II in Asia as described in a sobering and insightful history of two types of redress: compensation for material war damage and restitution of looted property. Japanese Army units and citizens stole goods while shelling and bombardment by all sides destroyed factories, offices and residential neighbourhoods. How were these cases of material damage and loss to be rectified, and who was to rectify them? What financial means and legal precedents were there to fall back on at a time of decolonization, independence struggle, and shifting alliances on the brink of the Cold War? The politics of redress makes an important contribution to the study of law and society in Southeast Asia. It lays bare the complex web of interconnections between politics, law and economy from a comparative historical perspective.

1. Wildlife damage to human property threatens human-wildlife coexistence. Conflicts arising from wildlife damage in intensively managed landscapes often undermine conservation efforts, making damage mitigation and compensation of special concern for wildlife conservation. However, the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of damage and claims at large scales are still poorly understood. 2. Here, we investigated the patterns of damage caused by brown bears Ursus arctos and its ecological and socio-economic correlates at a continental scale. We compiled information about compensation schemes across 26 countries in Europe in 2005-2012 and analysed the variation in the number of compensated claims in relation to (i) bear abundance, (ii) forest availability, (iii) human land use, (iv) management practices and (v) indicators of economic wealth. 3. Most European countries have a posteriori compensation schemes based on damage verification, which, in many cases, have operated for more than 30 years. On average, over 3200 claims of bear damage were compensated annually in Europe. The majority of claims were for damage to livestock (59%), distributed throughout the bear range, followed by damage to apiaries (21%) and agriculture (17%), mainly in Mediterranean and eastern European countries. 4. The mean number of compensated claims per bear and year ranged from 0-1 in Estonia to 8-5 in Norway. This variation was not only due to the differences in compensation schemes; damage claims were less numerous in areas with supplementary feeding and with a high proportion of agricultural land. However, observed variation in compensated damage was not related to bear abundance. 5. Synthesis and applications. Compensation schemes, management practices and human land use influence the number of claims for brown bear damage, while bear abundance does not. Policies that ignore this complexity and focus on a single factor, such as bear population size, may not be effective in reducing claims. To be effective, policies should be based on integrative schemes that prioritize damage prevention and make it a condition of payment of compensation that preventive measures are applied. Such integrative schemes should focus mitigation efforts in areas or populations where damage claims are more likely to occur. Similar studies using different species and continents might further improve our understanding of conflicts arising from wildlife damage.

Corruption and thefts of public assets harm a diffuse set of victims, weakens confidence in public institutions, damages the private investment climate, and threatens the foundations of the society as a whole. In developing countries with scarce public resources, the cost of corruption is an impediment to development: developing countries lose between US

Background Access to justice, enshrined as a fundamental human right in international conventions, includes the right to a fair trial and to just compensation. This dimension of justice is particularly crucial in contexts of armed conflict, where victims of military aggression require effective reparation mechanisms. Historically, both judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have been created to address mass claims, from restitution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Kuwait to processes in post-authoritarian or post-communist states. Such mechanisms highlight the need for specialised institutions, as ordinary courts are often unable to manage the volume and complexity of conflict-related claims. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, reparations have become central to legal and political debate. Methods This study employed an empirical approach, combining systematic data collection with comparative legal analysis. Sources included UN and Council of Europe acts, reports by international organisations (CoE, OSCE), NGO publications, and scholarly works. Three compensation models were examined in depth: the UN Compensation Commission, Kosovo property claims mechanisms, and Bosnia’s Commission for Real Property Claims. These were selected for their effectiveness, European relevance, and addressed harms. Comparative analysis evaluated their procedures, accessibility, and recognition of harm, contrasted with Ukraine’s emerging compensation mechanism. Results The study highlights lessons from the UNCC, Kosovo, and Bosnia, focusing on mandates, procedures, accessibility, and types of harm recognised. It identifies best practices and challenges, offering comparative insights for designing Ukraine’s future compensation system. Conclusions International commissions share key features: defined jurisdiction, politically sensitive and lengthy processes, and reliance on transparent procedures to ensure legitimacy. For Ukraine, enabling direct individual claims is essential to uphold the right to reparation. Yet enforcement challenges and risks of duplicative proceedings remain. Adapting global experience to Ukraine’s context is crucial for developing an effective and trusted compensation mechanism.