Confiscation of Russian Assets: Legal, Human Rights, and Political Limitations
- Katerina Ryzhenko, Pavlo Demchuk, and Natalia Sichevlyuk
- Jul 1, 2024
- 18 min read
Updated: Jul 6
Moral considerations in confiscating Russian assets
Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has been going on for almost two years. During this time, Russia has committed brutal crimes against Ukrainians, which were witnessed by the international community. In February 2023, the UN General Assembly demanded that Russia stop the war and immediately withdraw its army from Ukraine.[1] In March 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, accusing him of being responsible for the illegal deportation of children from Ukraine, which constitutes a war crime.[2] While Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and awaiting fair adjudication of crimes committed during this bloody war, the material losses of the Ukrainian state are growing.
According to the World Bank, the losses caused by the aggressor amount to more than 400 billion euros on the controlled territory alone, and after the liberation of the entire territory of Ukraine from the invaders, this amount might double.[3] Ukraine’s economy currently functions at the expense of macro-financial assistance from partners, but Russia must pay for the damage it caused to peaceful Ukrainians.
Voluntary compensation by the aggressor country is unlikely. A more practical solution is to confiscate the assets of Russia as a state, as well as its citizens and companies that support the Putin regime. However, prior to the full-scale invasion, there were no universal approaches to the confiscation of assets of the aggressor state with the possible aim of transferring them to the state affected by the aggression while the war was ongoing.
Historically, compensation for war losses was conducted mostly at the expense of state funds on the basis of treaties or other international acts. In most cases, the aggressor state must agree to pay compensation under such treaties, since they are typically negotiated and require the consent of all parties involved. However, there are some scenarios in which compensation may be determined without the direct agreement of the aggressor state:
Imposed reparations: in certain situations, the victorious parties in a conflict may impose reparations on the aggressor state as part of the peace settlement, as after World War I with the Treaty of Versailles.[4] These imposed reparations are often outlined in a treaty or agreement. The aggressor state may be required to accept these terms as a condition for the cessation of hostilities and the restoration of peace.
