The Register of Damage for Ukraine (RD4U): a Comparative Legal Aspect

Abstract

The article is dedicated to a topical, comprehensive, and systemic comparative legal analysis of the Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation Against Ukraine (RD4U), contrasted with key historical judicial and quasi-judicial institutions in the field of recording, evaluation, and reparation of damage caused during international and non-international armed conflicts. The paper examines in detail the international regulatory framework governing the establishment and functioning of the Register of Damage, primarily anchored by UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-11/5 and Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Resolution CM/Res(2023)3, which officially approved the Statute of this mechanism. It is emphasized that the Register operates strictly as a preliminary claims-recording and evidence-gathering system, without any judicial functions, adjudicative authority, or power to determine individual state or personal liability. Furthermore, the article thoroughly discloses the substantive and procedural eligibility criteria for claims regarding temporal, territorial, and personal parameters. Within the framework of the comparative legal method, the structural legal nature, financing sources, circle of applicants, and forms of satisfaction of the Register of Damage for Ukraine are systematically compared with the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, and the Commission for Real Property Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Based on a rigorous critical analysis of the financial viability models of previous historical precedents, in particular the implementation experience of the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords, it is profoundly proven that shifting compensation burdens onto the fragile budgets of post-war states or relying on voluntary donor grants inevitably turns binding international normative obligations into a ‘dead letter’. Finally, the study substantiates the critical necessity of overcoming the systemic shortcomings of previous international reparation mechanisms by lawfully engaging revenues generated from frozen and immobilized sovereign assets of the Russian Federation, as well as introducing special trade tariffs and levies, as a guaranteed, sustainable source of funding for the future International Claims Commission for Ukraine.