CYIL 2011

VERONIKA BÍLKOVÁ CYIL 2 ȍ2011Ȏ interference with IDPs’ lives (internal displacement etc.), and the second applying to more isolated acts of such interference (certain violations occurring in the course of displacement). Conclusions As members of one of the most vulnerable categories of persons, IDPs are often exposed to various outrageous practices, from the act of displacement itself up to the loss of property, the severance of family ties, attacks upon their human dignity, etc.. It has become the task of international law to ensure that these practices, exempt from the domaine réservé of states, stop and that reparation is provided for any violation/harm/damage suffered due to them. The legal regulation in this area has been undergoing significant changes in the recent period. Traditionally, IDPs have not been treated as holders of an autonomous legal status entitling them to a special right to reparation. They could claim reparation under the three branches of international law applicable to them, i.e. human rights law, IHL and ICL. Yet, none of the relevant reparation regimes has been designed specifically for them, to suit their needs, and they all link the right to reparation to previous violations of the primary norms of such laws. Over the past two decades, however, a series of legal instruments has been adopted at both the international and national level which indicates that a general right to reparation for IDPs has been gradually emerging under international law. This right is addressed to IDPs as holders of a particular legal status, and seeks to reflect their specific needs. It is not embedded in just one branch of international law, and it is not necessarily conditioned on a previous violation of this law; rather, it is often automatically linked to any harm/damage that may be incurred by IDPs. This general right has not yet been well established and has no firm roots in customary regulation. Moreover, its contours and content remain to be clearly defined, both with respect to the forum in which the right could be claimed and with regard to the specific parameters (the type of act that triggers the right, the identity of the relevant duty holder). Yet, despite this, the shift towards a general right to reparation for IDPs seems beyond doubt. The question is no longer whether, but when, how and in what specific form a general right to reparation for IDPs will emerge under international law.

112