By Jonelys (Nelly) Lozano
During law school, Nelly served as the Managing Editor for Symposium on the Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology. She also worked as both a Summer Associate and part-time law clerk with Barclay Damon LLP.
Since passing the bar exam, Nelly joined Barclay Damon’s Intellectual Property practice area, focusing on Trademarks, Copyright and Licensing.
Reparations are a recognized principle of international law and justice and have been used by governments to provide remedy for victims of human rights violations and other forms of state-sanctioned harm. As calls for reparations for victims of the transatlantic slave trade and slavery in the United States have gained momentum globally, questions remain regarding how reparations should be justified and what forms those reparations should take.
This paper examines historical and current U.S. reparations efforts for addressing slavery through a comparative analysis of reparations programs implemented by Germany and Japan following World War II. Specifically, it analyzes how each country justified reparations and the factors that shaped the forms those reparations ultimately took.
Through this comparison, the paper demonstrates that many reparations measures could provide meaningful redress for the harms of slavery in the U.S. However, the scale and severity of slavery, the passage of time, the absence of domestic and international law at the time it occurred and continued political and social opposition to reparations distinguish the U.S. from other reparations efforts and complicate the search for a proper remedy..
_________________
To read the paper, open HERE.
