Сатисфакція як форма відшкодування шкоди, заподіяної міжнародно-протиправним діянням

Abstract

The article examines the essence of satisfaction as a special form of reparation for an internationally wrongful act and the practice of its application. It has been established that satisfaction is a special form of reparation used for the purpose of full reparation for non-pecuniary damage if that the damage is not compensated by either restitution or compensation. At the same time, international practice shows that satisfaction may accompany both restitution and compensation. It has been established that there are two types of satisfaction: first, satisfaction as an independent form of reparation in the case when the injury is only of a moral and legal nature, as well as satisfaction provided in cases where the injury cannot be fully compensated for by restitution or compensation; secondly, satisfaction that accompanies any form of reparation. It has been established that Art. 37 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001 describes satisfaction. This article deals with three aspects of satisfaction: the legal character of satisfaction and the types of injury for which it may be granted; some modalities of satisfaction; limitations on the obligation to give satisfaction. It has been substantiated that the nature of the harm caused – material or moral – is decisive in choosing the form of reparation: compensation or satisfaction. Satisfaction as a legal consequence of international responsibility plays a complementary role. This complementarity is a safeguard against confusion with other forms of reparation such as restitutio in integrum or compensation. Despite the fact that satisfaction is often offered outside of formal legal proceedings, its application is confirmed by international jurisprudence. It is concluded that the decisions of international judicial bodies on awarding satisfaction are widely recognized, to a certain extent due to the fact that the condemnation of an internationally wrongful act by an authoritative third party aims to achieve a balance between the interests of the parties in a particular case, on the one hand, and the fundamental interests of the international community, on the other.