CYIL 2014

TOMÁŠ LIPTÁK CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ In the second chapter Pavel Šturma presents ad hoc international compensation mechanisms which are publicly less known. The chapter presents historical grounds which gave rise to a plethora of different indemnification mechanisms in the international public law. For further clarity three theoretical categories of reparation mechanisms are introduced: mechanisms founded on the grounds of international agreements, mechanisms created by an act of an international organisation and indemnification mechanisms of a hybrid nature. A conclusion is provided emphasizing ad hoc nature, which does not allow for proper discussion about general customary rules on indemnification. In another chapter Vladimír Balaš gives an account of the valuation of compensation for expropriated property of foreign investors. Promotion and protection of foreign investment has skyrocketed in the last twenty years and a vast body of case law exists concerning improper interference with the property of foreign investors. One of these aspects discussed in the text is methods of valuation of property that allow for calculation of compensation for a foreign investor wronged. Basic rules of valuation of property expropriated by the host states are given, and other accounting and auditing methods which can be used for proper estimation of foreign investor’s property. There is a compelling remark about the lack of rules on compensation in international investment treaties in comparison to the substantial compensation given to investors for expropriated property in the host state. Indemnification in the context of fighting terrorism and peace operations Veronika Bílková introduces the reader to the reparation of victims of terrorism at an international level. The first part presents the starting point and contemporary trend of universal and regional European international legal instruments regulating compensation for victims. The presentation of theoretical approaches, i.e. the broader universal approach or the more restrictive European approach, is stimulating. The second, analytical part puts emphasis on defining the victim of terrorism and on questions what sort of reparation can be obtained for victims or what the proper amount of compensation is. Another chapter by Denisa Žilová concerns the specific compensation of victims of terrorism in the Lockerbie case and provides the reader with a comparison of compensation regimes created by United States, Israel or Great Britain. The chapter differentiates between the national compensation mechanisms of Great Britain and Israel based on the experience of those states in armed conflict and on the other compensation mechanism of the United States which provides narrower compensation options for victims. A topic contributed by Department member Martin Faix and Šárka Ošťádalová clarifies reparation for wrongful acts committed during UN, EU and NATO peace operations. The thesis of this chapter is that one element of the success of peace operations is good relations with local communities. This can be accomplished by reparation mechanisms for damages done by execution of peace operations. On the

496