Recalde-Vela 193 governing council124 to be allowed to file claims on their behalf.125 Under this program, the government of Kuwait was able to submit approximately 32,000 claims on behalf of Bidoons.126 It should be noted that the UNCC’s Governing Council—as a norm—generally did not allow for late claims to be filed.127 However, it is clear that special cases—like the cases of stateless individuals—were taken into account and leniency was required. For these reasons, the UNCC’s work has been hailed as an innovative ‘departure from previous war reparations practice’128 for its various special measures to address the challenges faced by stateless persons in accessing redress. They were able to turn challenges into opportunities. However, caution is necessary. It should be emphasized that the UNCC’s practice did not change the international law of diplomatic protection129 but deviated from it, creating—at least in the domain of claims mechanisms—a new model to be applied in special circumstances. In some respects, the UNCC has departed from the “traditional approach” of diplomatic protection and has developed its own approach to fit its needs. According to McGovern, due to these departures from the “traditional” approach, it is possible to say that the UNCC ‘is sui generis and its holdings are lex specialis’.130 This is evident if compared to other claims mechanisms and tribunals of a similar nature which strictly required the state of nationality to bring claims on behalf of its nationals. Furthermore, the UNCC’s departure is not absolute, as it still required a state or an “entity” to file claims on behalf of individuals. However, the fact that it did not strictly require the state of nationality to carry out this function and actively sought solutions to ensure that those who could not have their state of nationality file claims on their behalf through other “entities” was new. In this sense, its practice was also not in line with that of human rights mechanisms existing at the time.131 Furthermore, through the work of the UNCC, humanitarian considerations began to enjoy a more central role in war reparations processes, a trend which has continued to the present day and will most likely continue in the future.132 In fact, according to Frigessi di Rattalma and Treves, all ‘these departures go in the direction of the humanization of the international law of state responsibility’.133 The individual, as a victim, is beginning to gain a more central role in the international law of state responsibility as the benefactor of compensation efforts, rather than as a means for the state to assert its rights vis-à-vis another state under international law. The UNCC’s practice is in line with a trend that began to develop in the 20th and 21st centuries with the creation of human rights mechanisms and (international) criminal tribunals.134 Regarding challenges and opportunities for access to redress for stateless persons under this mechanism, it should be emphasized the fact that the UNCC had to adopt special strategies to ensure their access. This 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 One of the conditions was that, under paragraph 1.e, claimants ‘have not held the nationality of any State during the period from 1 January 1992 to 1 January 1996’ in UNCC Governing Council, Decision concerning the filing of “late” claims of the “Bidoon” taken by the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission at its 137th meeting, on 2 July 2004. (2 July 2004) S/AC.26/ Dec.225. TJ Feighery, CS Gibson, & TM Rajah (eds), War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Designing Compensation After Conflict (1st, Oxford University Press, 2014), at 126. LA Taylor, ‘The United Nations Compensation Commission’ in C Ferstman, M Goetz, & A Stephens (eds), Reparations for victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity (1st, Nijhoff, 2009), at 202. F Woolridge & O Elias, ‘Humanitarian considerations in the work of the United Nations Compensation Commission’ (2003) 85(851) International Review of the Red Cross 555. FE McGovern, ‘Dispute System Design: The United Nations Compensation Commission’ (2009) 14 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 171. C Whelton, ‘The United Nations Compensation Commission and International Claims Law: A Fresh Approach’ (1993) 26 Ottawa Law Review 607. FE McGovern, ‘Dispute System Design: The United Nations Compensation Commission’ (2009) 14 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 171. The UNCC was established long after regional human rights courts had already begun hearing cases; however, it does predate mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC) which, like human rights mechanisms, do not require a state to ‘assist’ the individual in bringing a claim. However, it should be noted that even though individuals in human rights mechanisms (such as regional human rights courts and UN semi-judicial mechanisms) are generally acknowledged as participants—not as parties—to the proceedings. F Woolridge & O Elias, ‘Humanitarian considerations in the work of the United Nations Compensation Commission’ (2003) 85(851) International Review of the Red Cross 555; H Van Houtte, H Das & B Delmartino, ‘The United Nations Compensation Commission’ in P De Greiff (ed) The Handbook of Reparations (Oxford University Press, 2006), at 341. M. Frigessi di Rattalma & T. Treves, The United Nations Compensation Commission: A Handbook (Kluwer Law International, 1999), at 8. The regional human rights courts (European, Inter-American, African), the International Criminal Tribunals of Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, the ICC, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary Chambers for Cambodia, which are mixed (international and domestic) mechanisms.