Ordinary and extraordinary satisfaction as forms of non-material liability in international law

Abstract

The article explores the forms of non-material liability in international law, namely ordinary and extraordinary satisfaction, through the lens of legal theory and factual analysis. The authors provide an overview of the peculiarities of non-material damage in the context of international relations. The essence of ordinary satisfaction is revealed. To satisfy the political claims of the victim state, various measures are being contemplated, which include making apologies, expressing regret and condolences, rendering honors, and giving assurances. It should be stressed that the measures in question can be employed either individually or collectively, depending on the situation. Examples of the ordinary satisfaction are presented, accompanied by a brief summary of the incident that necessitated the fulfillment of non-material demands. The key requirements for ordinary satisfaction include formality, publicity and transparency, with solemnity and symbolism being highlighted as necessary. It is emphasized that ordinary satisfaction should be adequate and proportional to the damage caused, it is pointed out that the use of forms humiliating to the responsible state is unacceptable. It is worth noting that measures expressed through satisfaction are consistently directed towards the state as a subject of international law. The extraordinary satisfaction, if deemed necessary, not only the temporary restriction of state bodies’ powers and the reorganization of certain elements in the political and social system of the violating state but also the temporary occupation of its territory, which highlights the exceptional nature of the measures implemented. The article covers the experience of the victorious allied forces implementing measures to abolish the entire state mechanism of Nazi Germany. It has been established that ordinary and extraordinary satisfaction are significantly distinct in terms of the nature of their impact on the offender, because both forms represent non-material liability for internationally wrongful acts, which, however, differ fundamentally in terms of their severity.