City Research Online

Abstract

This article examines the fragmented treatment of moral damages under international law, with a particular focus on how international courts and tribunals assess and quantify such claims. Moral, non-pecuniary harm - intangible harms such as psychological suffering, humiliation, loss of reputation, and diminished enjoyment of life - have long been recognised in principle, dating back to the Opinion in the Lusitania Cases of 1923. Yet, nearly a century later, arbitral practice remains inconsistent, with tribunals adopting divergent approaches to both entitlement and valuation. This lack of coherence not only undermines predictability but also risks eroding confidence in the international legal order.
The article undertakes a comparative analysis of three principal fora: arbitral tribunals operating under the ICSID Convention, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The jurisprudence of these bodies demonstrates wide disparities in awards. While ICSID tribunals, beginning with Desert Line v Yemen, have recognised the availability of moral damages in exceptional circumstances and frequently awarded sums of around US$1 million, human rights courts typically award far more modest amounts for comparable harms, but generally without imposing a requirement for exceptionality. This divergence reveals a troubling absence of cross-fertilisation between sub-branches of international law, resulting in unequal treatment of similar injuries.
To address the difficulties of quantification, the article explores the possibility of resorting to the willingness to pay methodology long debated and utilised in the United States to quantify and value pain and suffering related loss and damage. National and international courts have frequently been asked to and do put a price tag on moral harm suffered. The economic methodologies developed in other fields may assist international courts and tribunals in structuring moral damage awards. While none of these methods is flawless, their use - especially when combined with psychological assessments - can move decision-making away from ad hoc judgments toward more principled and transparent outcomes. The article concludes that a more coherent, scientifically informed approach is urgently required. By adopting established valuation techniques, such as the willingness to pay methodology, and fostering convergence across different fora, international law can ensure fairer and more consistent treatment of moral damage claims, advancing both the principle of full reparation and the credibility of the international legal system.

Publication Type:	Monograph (Working Paper)
Additional Information:	Copyright 2026, the author.
Publisher Keywords:	Moral Damages; International Legal Order; Coherence; Consistent Treatment
Subjects:	J Political Science > JX International law K Law > K Law (General)
Departments:	The City Law School The City Law School > Academic Programmes The City Law School > CLS Working Paper Series
SWORD Depositor:	Symplectic Administrator

Export

Downloads