How to get Russia to pay Ukrainian business losses?

We need to fight because even one positive case: how do the compensatory mechanisms work? To get real compensation, not the solution on paper, it is necessary to go through two stages: where to get the decision? Today, there is no universal mechanism provided specifically to compensate for business losses during the war. We have to improvise and use the available mechanisms "for yourself". We hear about the UN International Court of Justice, the ECtHR, the International Criminal Court, etc.

However, these institutions are not intended for disputes between business and the state. For business, the best option is international investment arbitration, and here is what you need to know about him: who and when to contact? In 1998, the Russian Federation and Ukraine concluded an agreement under which the Russian Federation should defend the Ukrainian investment in its territory.

By analogy of Crimean Affairs, it can be said that the duty of the Russian Federation is also spreading in the territory occupied by Russia, such as the Kherson region. Investment by agreement is any plant, shopping center, car dealership and more. In the arbitration, you can charge any losses: both actual (destroyed building, stolen goods, etc. ), and lost profit. The cost and time depends on whether the Russian Federation will participate in the process.

Seeing the attitude of the Russian Federation to international institutions - it does not look very likely. For the applicant, this is for the better, as then the case will be considered faster and the arbitration fees will be smaller. As for the value, if the amount of the claim is one million euros and the dispute is considering three referees, the arbitration fee will on average 108 445 euros. If the dispute considers one referee - 60 835 euros.

If the Russian Federation does not take an active participation in the arbitration - approximately two -thirds less. The implementation of the solution is the main problem, as the Russian Federation ignores international law. In addition, there is a legal concept that does not allow the use of assets of the Russian Federation abroad (in the EU, USA, etc. ) to compensate for losses.

One thing is when Britain or the United States has applied sanctions and "frozen" certain assets of the Russian Federation in their territory. The other is to allow these frozen assets to compensate. Such permission can be granted: either a specific state at the level of its national legislation (as Canada has already done) and, for example, by many states, subject to the signing of the International Convention.

In any case, doubt that the mechanism of use of assets of the Russian Federation for compensation of losses will not be created. Seeing the unprecedentedness of the Russian Federation is just a matter of time. However, by the time this mechanism is made, it would be logical not to delay and now get a decision on the basis of which such compensation can be obtained.