About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

17 Int'l J. Hum. Rts. 1 (2013)

handle is hein.journals/ininllh17 and id is 1 raw text is: The International Journal of Human Rights gj Routledge Vol. 17, No. 1, January 2013, 1-17 The case of the 2006 War in Lebanon: reparations? Reconstruction? Or both? Faten Ghosna* and Amal Khouryb 'School of Government and Public Policy, University ofArizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; Peace and Conflict Studies Department, Guilford College, Greensboro, NC, USA The Lebanese government took an interesting path to recovery after the July 2006 War. It embarked on a mission to both compensate the victims of the war - a challenge to the traditional reparation model - and to rebuild the country. This article examines the Lebanese case by presenting the path the national government took in the aftermath of the war, analysing Lebanon's decision to create a unique scheme - the adoption method - in its road to recovery, investigating the advantages and disadvantages of their approach, and last but not least providing some lessons learned on how individual reparations can be provided for victims of international humanitarian law in cases where there is no agreement in place. Keywords: Lebanon; reconstruction; reparation; restorative justice; transitional justice Introduction Within weeks of the United Nations' brokered ceasefire going into effect, more than $940 million had been pledged to help Lebanon recover from the damages of its latest war. From this money, the Lebanese government slated about $760 million to compensate the victims of the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon.2 However, the national government was not the only one on the ground providing compensations and helping in the reconstruction. For example, the government of Qatar had pledged over $300 million to help the victims of Khiam rebuild their town. In Khiam, as well as three other towns in South Lebanon, Qatar had set up its own administrative body, Qatar Rehabilitation Program for South Lebanon, to take charge of providing the compensation directly to the victims, bypassing the Lebanese government and its administrative bodies. This was possible, due to the adop- tion scheme developed by the Lebanese government. In fact, the Lebanese government took a unique and innovative road to recovery after the July 2006 War. It embarked on a mission to both compensate the victims of the war and to rebuild the country simultaneously. This Article examines the Lebanese case by presenting the path the national government took in the aftermath of the war, analysing Lebanon's decision to create a unique scheme in its road to recovery, investigating the advantages and disadvantages of their approach, and providing some lessons learned on how reparations can be provided to victims of inter- national humanitarian law when there is no agreement between the warring parties. An important question that our case helps to answer is: who pays when there is no *Corresponding author. Email: fghosn@email.arizona.edu ISSN 1364-2987 print/ISSN 1744-053X online © 2013 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2012.688507 http://www.tandfonline.com

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most