Recent years have borne witness to growing demands for international law to address the suffering of victims of mass violence, reflecting a broader shift in the focus of international law from primarily state-centred to increasingly individual-centred.1 In disarmament law,2 this humanising trend has manifested in, and been driven by, humanitarian considerations being placed at the forefront of disarmament movements.3 This has shaped disarmament law through, among other things, the insertion of victim assistance provisions in treaties, including the Convention on Cluster Munitions4 (‘CCM’) and the Treaty on the Prohibition 103of Nuclear Weapons (‘TPNW’).5 Efforts to humanise international law also frequently involve moves to confer or recognise individual rights to reparations, including compensation, with some suggestions that considerations of humanity demand such rights.6 In the disarmament context, individuals have sought compensation from states and other actors for injuries arising out of the use of or failure to clear certain weapons.7 These claims have generally been brought on the basis of national legislation or human rights agreements, leaving unresolved the narrower question of whether disarmament treaties themselves give rise to individual rights to compensation.
|Title of host publication||Disarmament Law|
|Subtitle of host publication||Reviving the Field|
|Editors||Treasa Dunworth, Anna Hood|
|Place of Publication||London|
|Publisher||Taylor & Francis|
|Number of pages||28|
|Publication status||Published - 30 Oct 2020|