Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 562–567.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-562-567

Banndrovsky V. О.
Collective Countermeasures as a Legal Instrument for Securing Reparations for Gross Violations of Erga Omnes Obligations: Concept, Challenges, and Prospects

This article analyses collective countermeasures as a legal tool for securing reparations for gross violations of erga omnes obligations, with the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine as a case study. The refusal of the aggressor state to provide compensation, combined with Ukraine’s limited jurisdiction over foreign-based assets, raises the question of whether internationally coordinated restrictive measures may be regarded as lawful countermeasures aimed at enforcing reparation-related obligations. The analysis is conducted within the framework of the law of state responsibility and focuses on the legal character of erga omnes obligations. Particular attention is paid to the internal tension within the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, notably between Articles 48 and 54. While Article 48 recognises the right of non-injured states to invoke responsibility for breaches of obligations owed to the international community as a whole, Article 54 refrains from explicitly recognising a right to adopt countermeasures, referring instead to “lawful measures”, thereby leaving the normative status and limits of collective countermeasures uncertain. The article draws on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, including Barcelona Traction, South West Africa, The Gambia v. Myanmar and the Chagos Advisory Opinion, to demonstrate a gradual evolution towards acknowledging a legal interest of states in protecting community obligations even in the absence of direct injury. It then systematises the conditions for the legality of collective countermeasures in a reparations-oriented context, emphasising proportionality, coordination among states and the prohibition of double recovery. Against this background, the article considers the establishment of a United Nations-led international register of frozen russian assets as an instrument to enhance transparency, coordination and reversibility of collective measures, and as a potential foundation for a future reparations mechanism.

Keywords: collective countermeasures, state responsibility, erga omnes obligations, reparations, international law, armed aggression, frozen assets, principle of proportionality.

References

1. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 18 travnia 2022 r. u spravi No. 760/17232/20-ts (provadzhennia No. 61-15925sv21). URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/104635312
2. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 14 travnia 2025 u spravi No. 916/758/24. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127322717
3. Ukhvala Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 30 kvitnia 2025 r. u spravi No. 128/3134/24. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/127021986
4. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 12 liutoho 2025 r. u spravi No. 686/16081/23. URL: https://reyestr.court.ua/Review/125191841
5. Statut Orhanizatsii Obiednanykh Natsii. San-Frantsysko, 26 chervnia 1945 r. Ofitsiine publikuvannia: United Nations Treaty Series. URL: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf
6. Proiekt statei pro vidpovidalnist derzhav za mizhnarodno protypravni diiannia z komentariamy / Mizhnarodna komisiia z mizhnarodnoho New York: Orhanizatsiia Obiednanykh Natsii, 2001. 86 s. URL: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf
7. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application: 1962). Mizhnarodnyi sud OON. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/50 (in Ukr.).
8. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). Judgment of 22 July 2022. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/178/178-20220722-jud-01-00-en.pdf (in Ukr.).
9. South West Africa (Ethiopia South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa). Judgment of 18 July 1966. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/47/047-19660718-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (in Ukr.).
10. Dawidowicz Third-Party Countermeasures in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 313 p. (in Ukr.).
11. United Nations International Law Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law: U.N. Doc. A/73/10 (2018), Conclusion 2. URL: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_ articles/1_13_2018.pdf (in Ukr.).
12. Hathaway A., Mills M. M., Poston T. M. War Reparations: The Case for Countermeasures. Stanford Law Review. 2024. Vol. 76, May. P. 971–1066. URL: https://review.law.stanford.edu/wp-ontent/uploads/ sites/3/2024/05/Hathaway-et-al.-76-Stan.-L.-Rev.-971.pdf  (in Ukr.).
13. Dominicé C. The International Responsibility of States for Breach of Multilateral Obligations. European Journal of International 1999. Vol. 10, No. 2. P. 353–363. URL: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/10/2/585.pdf (in Ukr.).
14. Konsultatyvnyi vysnovok vid 25 liutoho 2019 roku u spravi “Pravovi naslidky vidokremlennia arkhipelahu Chahos vid Mavrykiiu u 1965 rotsi”. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/105780 (in Ukr.).
15. The Legal Consequences of Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Netherlands International Law Review. 2021. Vol. 68, No. 1. P. 1–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-021-00184-9 (in Ukr.).
16. Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland). Merits. Judgment of 13 September 1928. Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Series A, No. 17. P. 59. URL: https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-factory-at-chorzow-merits-judgment-thursday-13th-eptember-192 (in Ukr.).

 Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 26.02.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026