THE PLACE OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT BODIES IN THE SYSTEM OF COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY HOSTILITIES

Abstract

In order to restore the property rights of victims of military action related to the repulsion and containment of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation, and to obtain compensation for personal losses attributable to that, a comprehensive compensation mechanism should be introduced into the legislation of Ukraine. It should operate, providing the victims with quick, adequate and real compensation, despite the fact that the root cause of casualties and destruction on the territory of Ukraine is genocide and other crimes against peace, security of the humanity and the international legal order committed by the military-political leadership and military formations of the aggressor state. In bills drafted to settle issues of restoration of rights and awarding of compensations to victims of the consequences of the full-scale invasion of the aggressor state, local self-government bodies are designated to be authorized both to perform technical functions related to award determination and to making final decisions on the payment of compensation. The arguments in support of this vision of the place of local self-government bodies in the post-war compensation mechanism are, in particular: 1) the best knowledge of local self-government of the conditions of life of the relevant territorial communities, which, first of all, includes the pre-war condition of the housing stock and different amenities and facilities; 2) the fact that the practical restoration of the pre-war conditions of the victims will take place under the jurisdiction of the local self-government body, which in any case will require the knowledge of specialists of the local self-government, in particular, about the fundamental ways of development, planning, construction and other use the territory of a certain settlement; 3) the principle of subsidiarity, according to which in the interaction between different levels in a hierarchical management system, the higher level makes new decisions only if they are more effective than the corresponding decisions of the lower level. However, author states that this model does not fully correspond to foreign experience. In particular, in Iraq, the decisionmaking on compensation rests with the sub-committees on compensation for victims of military operations, military mistakes and terrorist operations, which are government executive bodies operating on the territory of each settlement. In the US, the official who is authorized to make decisions on compensation for victims of acts of interstate terrorism in the US is the Special Master of the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, who is appointed by the US federal government. However, the non-involvement of local authorities in executive functions within the framework of the compensation mechanism can be explained, first of all, by the limited consequences of state terrorism on the United States soil, which allows the elimination or mitigation of its consequences for the victims to be assigned to a single government agency. In Israel, to receive compensation payments, victims of terrorist acts and hostilities must apply to the Compensation Fund of the Israel Tax Administration. At the same time, the difference in the area of Israel and Ukraine should be taken into account, which may indicate in favor of the greater effectiveness of granting local rather than central authorities key powers in this area.