Better than Nothing? The Idea of “Rough Justice” for Individual Compensation in Disaster Cases
Abstract When affecting a considerable number of victims, post-disaster remedy processes face significant obstacles related to assessing and measuring the exact extent of individual losses. Recent cases have adopted the concept of “rough justice”, a method also applied to the September 11th Victim C...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Escola de Direito
2024-08-01
|
| Series: | Revista Direito GV |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-24322024000100221&lng=en&tlng=en |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract When affecting a considerable number of victims, post-disaster remedy processes face significant obstacles related to assessing and measuring the exact extent of individual losses. Recent cases have adopted the concept of “rough justice”, a method also applied to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and in transitional justice contexts. While achieving full compensation may be difficult, time-consuming, and sometimes impossible, resorting to “rough justice” can serve as a theoretical framework to legitimize insufficient reparations and the perpetuation of rights abuses. The article examines the application of the “rough justice” paradigm and assesses the relevance of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) in disaster cases. It focuses on holding companies accountable for compensating damages incurred by individuals. The conclusion emphasizes the necessity for any accepted parametrization to be rigorous, based on solid and transparent methods for assessing the losses of affected individuals and communities. The process should be guided by the needs of those affected and incorporate traditional knowledge, establishing minimum values while allowing for individual adjustments when possible. Furthermore, procedures should be open to review whenever new data arises regarding the impacts of the disaster or the evolving needs of the affected parties, especially considering ongoing and future losses. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2317-6172 |