Recalde-Vela 187 sation, and ‘measures to ensure satisfaction’, among others.50 Remedies are therefore the widely accepted consequences of an internationally wrongful act, and reparations are the concrete measures through which said act is remedied. The aim of reparations is to dictate the concrete measures that should restore the victim to his/her situation prior to the violation suffered, as established in the PCIJ’s landmark Factory at Chorzow case.51 Reparatory measures that are suitable for one set of victims will perhaps not be suitable for a different set of victims. Therefore, reparations should always be proportional to the harm incurred and considering the context and background of the harmed individual(s).52 While reparations can repair only the consequences of violations, it is important to note that reparations are also important in enforcement and determent from future violations,53 for example by requiring measures like guarantees of non-repetition.54 The importance of reparations lies in the significance for the victim. While it is often impossible to restore the victim to the situation existing prior to the violation, redress can aid in mending the wounds caused by said violations, helping victims move forward with their lives. For the purposes of this article, the term reparations will be used when referring to the concrete substantive measures to redress a wrong, whereas redress will be used to refer to the overall aim of the measures. 3 On diplomatic protection and nationality This section provides an overview of the history of the doctrine of diplomatic protection, which was the main mechanism for seeking redress on the international plane for many decades. It then explores the link between nationality and claims processes, and how the doctrine of diplomatic protection had to adapt to allow for stateless persons to access reparations for the violations they suffered. In the context of inter-state claims for internationally wrongful acts, ‘the “traditional” position concerning stateless persons is simple: no state may claim on their behalf’.55 In fact, according to Hailbronner, ‘a state may not […] protect foreign or stateless individuals, even if they have taken up prolonged residence on its territory’.56 Therefore, in line with the previously mentioned “traditional approach”, they cannot avail themselves of diplomatic protection57 and its benefits, which includes having claims filed on their behalf. The section concludes with a discussion on the change that resulted from the development of human rights in recent years relating to diplomatic protection. 3.1 The “traditional approach” The “traditional” framework for diplomatic protection—rooted in the writings of Vattel58—developed during the early years of international law, a time when the individual had no standing under international law and thus held no role in the international legal order: the system was exclusively state-centric.59 For this 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 See UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, available at <https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/remedyandreparation.aspx> accessed 15th March 2019. According to the PCIJ, reparations aim, as far as possible, to eliminate the consequences of the violation and to ‘restore the situation that would have existed if the act had not been committed’. See Factory at Chorzow (Claim for Indemnity) case, (Germany v Poland) (Merits) [1928] PCIJ, Series A—No 17 at 47. It should be noted that the word ‘victim’ is problematic for many people, including people who have been ‘victimized’. Some suggest alternative terms, like ‘survivor’. However, international mechanisms often use this term to refer to persons who have suffered a harm that falls within their jurisdiction. For instance, the International Criminal Court has an Office of Public Counsel for the Victims (OPCV) and a Victims and Witnesses unit. The Inter-American Court of Justice has referred to stateless persons as ‘victims’ in their proceedings, in both cases concerning stateless persons, Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs (IACtHR, 2005), para 2, and Case of Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs (IACtHR, 2014), para 1. For these reasons, this article will continue to use the term ‘victim’, although it is important to point out the issues with the use of this term. EC Gillard, ‘Reparation for violations of International Humanitarian Law’ (2003) 85(851) International Review of the Red Cross 529. See for instance Article 23, UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, available at <https://www.ohchr.org/ en/professionalinterest/pages/remedyandreparation.aspx> accessed 15th March 2019. P Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th, Routledge, New York 1997). K Hailbronner, ‘Nationality in Public International Law and European Law’ in R Bauböck (eds), Acquisition and Loss of Nationality: Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries (1st, AUP, 2006). DE Arzt, ‘The Right to Compensation: Basic Principles Under International Law’ (Palestinian Refugee Research Net 1999), <http:// prrn.mcgill.ca/research/papers/artz4.htm> accessed September 17th, 2015. Vattel discussed the principle of diplomatic protection in his book The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, stating that ‘Whoever ill-treats a citizen indirectly injures the State, which must protect that citizen’ E Vattel, The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, Classics of International Law, Book II, Chapter VI, p. 136 (ed. C Fenwich transl. 1916) as cited in J Dugard, ‘Articles on Diplomatic Protection’ (United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law 2006) <http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ adp/adp.html> accessed September 17th, 2015. International Law Commission (ILC), Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries (2006), 2 YBILC, A/61/10, at 25–26.