A Bill for the Occupants or an Issue to Negotiate: The Claims of Reparations for Soviet Occupation

Baltic Yearbook of International Law

Volumn 3, Issue , 2003, Pages 77-96

  Satkauskas, Rytis ^a,b  

^a VILNIUS UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 1 PANTHÉON SORBONNE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899200340     PISSN: 15696456     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (71)

1. 1 English text at http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/getfmt?C1=w&C2=104885. For the text of the law, see also, the article by D. Žalimas in this Yearbook
2. 2 In accordance with the Statute of the ILC, the adopted articles were submitted to the General Assembly accompanied with the recommendations to take note of the draft articles in resolution and to consider the possibility of convening an international conference with a view to concluding a convention on this topic. See Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-third session (23 April―1 June and 2 June―10 August 2001), Doc. A/56/10, New York, United Nations, 2001, pp. 41, 42.
3. 3 See the Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognized that ‘even in the absence of any applicable treaty provision, delay on the part of a claimant State may render an application inadmissible. [The Court] notes, however, that international law does not lay down any specific time limit in that regard. It is therefore for the Court to determine n the light of the circumstances of each case whether the passage of time renders an application inadmissible’. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 1992, pp. 253―254, para. 32. There are also many examples throughout history of expressed waiver of right to reparations. Many Asian countries, for instance, renounced their claims against Japan after World War II; see, W. Morway, ‘Peace Treaty with Japan’, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, p. 128. The United States and the United Kingdom did the same with respect to Italy; see, B.J. Cohen, ‘Reparations in the Post War Period’, Reprints in International Finance, No. 9, New Jersey, Princeton University, 1968, p. 272.
4. 4 Lithuanian text at http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/getfmt?C1=w&C2=1394.
5. 5 See, for details, R. Satkauskas, ‘États Baltes: succession ou identité’, Mémoire DEA, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, sous la direction de Brigitte Stern, Paris, 2000, available at http://addioi.free.fr/travaux/memoires/memoires_etats.html.
6. 6 According to approximate assessment presented by the experts of the Lithuanian delegation conducting the negotiations at that time, the damage directly inflicted by the occupation troops as well as the damage caused by their presence to the people, to nature, to assets, to economy, and to agricultural assets and the forests could amount to USD 80―90 billion. See ý. Stankeviþius, ‘Enhancing Security of Lithuania and Other Baltic states in 1992-94 and Future Guidelines’, NATO Individual Democratic Institutions Research Fellowship Report, 1994―1996, Chapter 2, note 41, available at http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/94-96/stankevi, accessed on 1 January 2002.
7. 7 See Stankeviþius, supra note 6, Chapter 2, paragraph 35. It was ascertained then that the value of the weaponry of the Lithuanian Armed Forces and its military assets comprised not less than USD 600 million.
8. 8 Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania No. I-2683 of 30 June 1992 On the decision adopted by the citizens of Lithuania on referendum of 14 June 1992. Lithuanian text available at http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/getfmt?C1=w&C2=2210.
9. 9 Text at http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/summits/hels92e.htm.
10. 10 See Paragraph 4 of the Preamble of the Law on compensation of 13 June 2000. Copy of Interpretive Statement on file with author.
11. 11 United Nations General Assembly Official Records, Forty-seventh Session, Doc. A/RES/47/21 and United Nations General Assembly Official Records, Forty-eight Session, Doc. A/RES/48/18.
12. 12 Russia acknowledged in these drafts its international obligation to withdraw the armed forces and consented to compensate for the weaponry and assets of the Lithuanian Armed Forces seized in 1940, as well as for the ecological damage inflicted by the occupational troops after 24 December 1991, when Russia succeeded to the obligations of the former USSR. For details on the withdrawal of troops, see Stankeviþius, supra note 6.
13. 13 In its declaration of 10 September 1993, the Lithuanian parliament expressed its belief that the agreed further negotiations on the compensation issue would contribute to the further normalisation of the relations between the two countries.
14. th Meeting, Doc. A/49/PV.79.
15. 15 See Stankeviþius, supra note 6, Chapter 2, section 4.
16. 16 See Article 8, Treaty between the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation on the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation from the territory of the Republic of Estonia and the conditions of its temporary stay in its territory, done in Moscow on 26 July 1994. On file with author.
17. 17 See, Press Release of Estonian Foreign Ministry of 2 September 1994 on troop withdrawal. On file with author.
18. 18 See Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 1992, pp. 247, para. 13.
19. 19 Lithuanian text at http://www3.lrs.lt/cgi-bin/getfmt?C1=w&C2=24625.
20. 20 The latter claim bases on the fact that the Baltic States did not participate in the agreements on World War II reparations; see, D. A. Loeber, ‘Legal Consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for the Baltic States on the Obligation “to Overcome the Problems Inherited from the Past”’ (2001) 1 Baltic Yearbook of International Law, pp. 148―151.
21. 21 R.M. Tracevskis, ‘Ladsbergis asks Russia for billions’, The Baltic Times, 18―24 May, 2000, pp. 1, 6.
22. 22 See the text accompanying infra note 59.
23. 23 See Russia’s request for membership of the Council of Europe. Document OPI 193 (1996) at http://stars.coe.fr/ta/ ta96/EOPI193.htm.
24. 24 See, L. Mälksoo, ‘Soviet Genocide? Communist Mass Deportation in the Baltic States and International Law’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 757―787.
25. 25 See entire text at http://www.baltasam.org/activity/documents/04_03_document. html.
26. 26 See R. M. Tracevskis, ‘Baltic Assembly reaches some consensus’, The Baltic Times, Dec.14―20, 2000, pp. 1―2.
27. 28 See S. Girnius, ‘Restraint and resentment from the Baltic States’, Transition, No. 23, 15 November 1996, p. 18. See text in French at http://www.letton.ch/lvoccup.htm.
28. 29 See Case concerning the Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company, Ltd. (Second Phase, Belgium v. Spain), ICJ Reports 1970, p. 32.
29. 30 See Commentary to Article 43, in Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-third session (23 April―1 June and 2 June―10 August 2001), Doc. A/56/10, New York, United Nations, 2001, p. 302.
30. 31 Supra note 2.
31. 32 See Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, P.C.I.J., Series A, 1927, No. 9, p. 21.
32. 33 See Commentary to Article 40, in Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-third session (23 April―1 June and 2 June―10 August 2001), Doc. A/56/10, New York, United Nations, 2001, p. 283.
33. 34 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm.
34. 35 Cited in D. Žalimas ‘Legal Issues on the Continuity of the Republic of Lithuania’ (2001) 1 Baltic Yearbook of International Law, p. 7.
35. 36 On the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, see S.Sužiedơlis, ‘The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Baltic States: An Introduction and Interpretation’, Lituanus, Vol. 35, 1989, No. 1.
36. 37 Text in French at http://www.letton.ch/lvriben2.htm.
37. 38 The unofficial translation reads as follows: ‘[Parties] … being convinced that once the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic annuls the consequences of the 1940 annexation violating Lithuania’s sovereignty, created will be additional conditions for mutual trust…’; see text, at United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1787, 1994, No. I-31051, New York, United Nations, 1994, pp. 20―26.
38. 39 See, for more on succession of States in the former USSR, B. Stern, ‘Succession d’États’ (1996) 262 Recueil de cours de l’Académie de droit international, p. 437.
39. 40 Russian deputy foreign minister Mr. Ivan Sergeyev declared on 28 March 2001 that in 1940 Soviet Army entered territory of Lithuania with the permission of the latter in accordance with the international law of that period and the decision on annexation was based upon demand of Lithuanian authorities. See ‘Moscow revising history on eve of Lithuanian presidential visit’, BNS report of 28 March 2001.
40. 41 L. Kaupilla, ‘The Baltic Puzzle. Russia’s Policy towards Estonia and Latvia 1992-1997’, Pro gradu, January 1999, University of Helsinki, pp. 36―47, accessed on 1 January 2002.
41. 42 These reclamations were categorically rejected by the Lithuanian side. In an interview for French magazine ‘Politique internationale’ Vytautas Landsbergis then Chairman of Lithuanian Parliament have logicaly remarked: ‘Quant au problème de ‘réparations’ que nous devrions verser pour les “investissements” soviétiques en Lituanie, permettez-moi de vous faire remarquer que nous n’avons jamais demandé à l’URSS ni de nous occuper ni de nous accorder quelque aide économique que ce fût. Pendant 50 ans l’Union soviétique a fait ce qu’elle a voulu de notre économie et de notre peuple. Si les Soviétiques ont dépensé 21 milliards de roubles pour maintenir notre pays sous leur occupation, dévaster sa nature et exploiter son peuple, il serait bien étrange, vous en conviendrez, de faire payer les frais entraînés par l’usage de la violence à ceux qui en ont été des victims’. See, V. Landsbergis, ‘Lituanie: sortir de l’empire’, entretien réalisé par Jacques Broyelle, Politique internationale, n 48, 1990, p. 26.
42. 43 Commentary to Article 31 in Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-third session (23 April―1 June and 2 June―10 August 2001), Doc. A/56/10, New York, United Nations, 2001, p. 224.
43. 44 Article 231 of the Treaty reads: ‘The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage … as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies’. More on reparations after World War I; see C.P.R. Romano, ‘Woe to the Vanquished? A Comparison of the Reparations Process after World War I (1914-18) and the Gulf War (1990-91)’ (1997) 2 Austrian Review of International and European Law, pp. 361―390.
44. 45 I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, ‘Reparations after World War II’, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 180―184.
45. 46 It stated inter alia that: ‘Iraq . . . is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations, as a result of Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.’
46. 47 A. Steinkamm, ‘War Damages’, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, p. 301.
47. 48 Ian Brownlie even separates the protest aiming to assert the illegality of an act from the claim for State responsibility; see, I. Brownlie, System of the Law of the Nations, State Responsibility, Part I, Oxford, Clarendon, 1983, p. 29.
48. 49 See, the study in B.J. Cohen, ‘Reparations in the Post War Period’, Reprints in International Finance, No. 9, New Jersey, Princeton University, 1968, pp 268―288.
49. 50 Not forgetting another USD 4 billion that Western Germany received in economic aid. Source: A. Cairncross, The Price of War, Oxford, Blackwell, 1986, p. 219.
50. 51 See for details, R. Bank, ‘The New Programs for Payments to Victims of National Socialist Injustice’ (2001) 44 German Yearbook of International Law, pp.307―352.
51. 52 B.J. Cohen, ‘Reparations in the Post War Period’ (1968) 9 Reprints in International Finance, Princeton University, p. 277.
52. 53 See, I. Brownlie, System of the Law of the Nations, State Responsibility, Part I, Oxford, Clarendon, 1983, p. 120 et seq.
53. 54 Immagini Memoria Coscienza: Il bombardamiento del 26 giugno 1944, San Marino, 1996, p. 50.
54. 55 See M. Koskenniemi, ‘Case Concerning Passage Through the Great Belt’ (1996) 27 Ocean Development & International Law, pp. 255―289.
55. nd Session, H.CON.RES.176 at accessed on 1 January 2002.
56. 57 It is not required that the invocation of State responsibility be notified by means of formal diplomatic correspondence. In Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru it was sufficient that the respondent State was aware of the claim as a result of the communications from the claimant in the form of press reports of speeches or meetings. See Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 254, para. 33―34.
57. 58 Supra note 27.
58. 59 ‘Soviet Occupation said to have cost Lithuania $20 billion’, RFE/RL Baltic States Report, Vol. 1, No. 33 of 16 October 2000. Text also at http://www.rferl.org/Balticreport/2000/10/33-161000.html. The compensation for the violations was calculated as follows: executions USD 7.5 billion, repression USD 1.8 billion, forced recruitment USD 2.3 billion, nationalisation 500 million, damage to the Catholic Church and other violations 200 million; see for original text, ‘Sovietǐ okupacijos padaryta žala – 20 milijardǐ doleriǐ’, Lietuvos Rytas, No. 236, 7 October 2000, p. 2.
59. 60 Supra note 3.
60. 61 See commentary to Article 44 b, in Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-third session (23 April―1 June and 2 June―10 August 2001), Doc. A/56/10, New York, United Nations, 2001, pp. 309―311.
61. 62 N. Coleman, ‘MPs seek Soviet occupation damages’, The Baltic Times, October 12―18, 2000, p. 2.
62. 63 See, ‘Chairmen of Lithuanian-Russian commission to meet in Nida on Saturday’, BNS report of 19 January 2001. Later he proposed, though unsuccessfully, to include the compensation question in the agenda of Lithuanian―Russian intergovernmental cooperation commission. See RFE/RL Baltic States Report, Vol. 2, No. 8 of 2 April 2001, http://www.rferl.org/balticreport/2001/04/8-020401.html accessed on 1 January 2002.
63. 64 ‘Law on occupation damages to be revised’, The Baltic Times, March 22―28, 2001, p. 6.
64. 65 See ‘Lithuanian lawmakers include revoking of Soviet Compensation bill into spring agenda’, BNS report of 20 March 2002.
65. 66 See ‘Deputy foreign minister says Lithuania to expand bilateral ties’, BNS report of 18 January 2001.
66. 67 See further, A. Randelzhofer and C. Tomuschat (eds.), State Responsibility and the Individual: Reparation in Instances of Grave Violations of Human Rights, The Hague, Nijhoff, 1999, pp. 320.
67. 68 Judgement, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 4 (1988), paragraph 174. See further, J. E. Méndez and J. M. Vivanco, ‘Disappearances and the Inter-American Court: reflections on a litigation experience’ (1990) 13 Hamline Law Review, pp. 507―577.
68. 69 ‘Transcript of Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov Press Conference on Outcomes of Meeting with Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus (Vilnius, 7 March 2002)’, Daily News Bulletin of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Information and Press Department, 12 March 2002. Text at http://www.ln.mid.ru/website/bl.nsf/900b2c3ac91734634325698f002d9dcf/8c003f26c29d84a043256b7a0 0341719?OpenDocument.
69. 70 ‘Interview to Russian News Agency RIA Novosti in Relation to the Upcoming Visit of Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Igor Ivanov to Lithuania’, Daily News Bulletin of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Information and Press Department, 6 March 2002. Text at http://www.ln.mid.ru/website/bl.nsf/900b2c3ac91734634325698f002d9dcf/76710954962115b943256b75005cc759?OpenDo cument.
70. 71 Supra notes 43 and 56.
71. 72 The issue of the restitution of the building of Lithuanian Embassy in Paris, occupied by Soviets immediately after the annexation of Lithuania in 1940 and actually used by the diplomatic services of Russian Federation has been expressly mentioned in the last paragraph of the preamble of the Law on Compensation. See for more on this subject, R. Satkauskas, ‘Practice of France with Respect to the Baltic States’ (2001) 1 Baltic Yearbook of International Law, pp. 111―120.