100 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session bodies,521 and ICSID tribunals under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States.522 Other compensation claims have been settled by agreement, normally on a without prejudice basis, with the payment of substantial compensation a term of the agreement.523 The rules and principles developed by these bodies in assessing compensation can be seen as manifestations of the general principle stated in article 36. (7) As to the appropriate heads of compensable damage and the principles of assessment to be applied in quantification, these will vary, depending upon the content of particular primary obligations, an evaluation of the respective behaviour of the parties and, more generally, a concern to reach an equitable and acceptable outcome.524 The following examples illustrate the types of damage that may be compensable and the methods of quantification that may be employed. (8) Damage to the State as such might arise out of the shooting down of its aircraft or the sinking of its ships, attacks on its diplomatic premises and personnel, damage caused to other public property, the costs incurred in responding to pollution damage, or incidental damage arising, for example, out of the need to pay pensions and medical expenses for officials injured as the result of a wrongful act. Such a list cannot be comprehensive and the categories of compensable injuries suffered by States are not closed. (9) In the Corfu Channel case, the United Kingdom sought compensation in respect of three heads of damage: replacement of the destroyer Saumarez, which be(Footnote 520 continued.) prudence on these subjects, see, inter alia, Aldrich, op. cit. (footnote 357 above), chaps. 5–6 and 12; C. N. Brower and J. D. Brueschke, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1998), chaps. 14–18; M. Pellonpää, “Compensable claims before the Tribunal: expropriation claims”, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility, R. B. Lillich and D. B. MaGraw, eds. (Irvington-on-Hudson, Transnational, 1998), pp. 185–266; and D. P. Stewart, “Compensation and valuation issues”, ibid., pp. 325–385. 521 For a review of the practice of such bodies in awarding compensation, see D. Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 214–279. 522 ICSID tribunals have jurisdiction to award damages or other remedies in cases concerning investments arising between States parties and nationals. Some of these claims involve direct recourse to international law as a basis of claim. See, e.g., Asian Agricultural Products Limited v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Reports (Cambridge University Press, 1997), vol. 4, p. 245 (1990). 523 See, e.g., Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Preliminary Objections (footnote 230 above), and for the Court’s order of discontinuance following the settlement, ibid., Order (footnote 232 above); Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Order of 10 September 1992, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 348 (order of discontinuance following settlement); and Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Order of 22 February 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 9 (order of discontinuance following settlement). 524 See Aldrich, op. cit. (footnote 357 above), p. 242. See also Graefrath, “Responsibility and damages caused: relationship between responsibility and damages” (footnote 454 above), p. 101; L. Reitzer, La réparation comme conséquence de l’acte illicite en droit international (Paris, Sirey, 1938); Gray, op. cit. (footnote 432 above), pp. 33–34; J. Personnaz, La réparation du préjudice en droit international public (Paris, 1939); and M. Iovane, La riparazione nella teoria e nella prassi dell’illecito internazionale (Milan, Giuffrè, 1990). came a total loss, the damage sustained by the destroyer “Volage”, and the damage resulting from the deaths and injuries of naval personnel. ICJ entrusted the assessment to expert inquiry. In respect of the destroyer Saumarez, the Court found that “the true measure of compensation” was “the replacement cost of the [destroyer] at the time of its loss” and held that the amount of compensation claimed by the British Government (£ 700,087) was justified. For the damage to the destroyer “Volage”, the experts had reached a slightly lower figure than the £ 93,812 claimed by the United Kingdom, “explained by the necessarily approximate nature of the valuation, especially as regards stores and equipment”. In addition to the amounts awarded for the damage to the two destroyers, the Court upheld the United Kingdom’s claim for £ 50,048 representing “the cost of pensions and other grants made by it to victims or their dependants, and for costs of administration, medical treatment, etc”.525 (10) In the M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) case, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines sought compensation from Guinea following the wrongful arrest and detention of a vessel registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the “Saiga”, and its crew. ITLOS awarded compensation of US$ 2,123,357 with interest. The heads of damage compensated included, inter alia, damage to the vessel, including costs of repair, losses suffered with respect to charter hire of the vessel, costs related to the detention of the vessel, and damages for the detention of the captain, members of the crew and others on board the vessel. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines had claimed compensation for the violation of its rights in respect of ships flying its flag occasioned by the arrest and detention of the “Saiga”; however, the tribunal considered that its declaration that Guinea acted wrongfully in arresting the vessel in the circumstances, and in using excessive force, constituted adequate reparation.526 Claims regarding the loss of registration revenue due to the illegal arrest of the vessel and for the expenses resulting from the time lost by officials in dealing with the arrest and detention of the ship and its crew were also unsuccessful. In respect of the former, the tribunal held that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines failed to produce supporting evidence. In respect of the latter, the tribunal considered that such expenses were not recoverable since they were incurred in the exercise of the normal functions of a flag State.527 (11) In a number of cases, payments have been directly negotiated between injured and injuring States following wrongful attacks on ships causing damage or sinking of the vessel, and in some cases, loss of life and injury among the crew.528 Similar payments have been negotiated where damage is caused to aircraft of a State, such as 525 Corfu Channel, Assessment of Amount of Compensation (see footnote 473 above), p. 249. 526 The M/V “Saiga” case (see footnote 515 above), para. 176. 527 Ibid., para. 177. 528 See the payment by Cuba to the Bahamas for the sinking by Cuban aircraft on the high seas of a Bahamian vessel, with loss of life among the crew (RGDIP, vol. 85 (1981), p. 540), the payment of compensation by Israel for an attack in 1967 on the USS Liberty, with loss of life and injury among the crew (ibid., p. 562), and the payment by Iraq of US$ 27 million for the 37 deaths which occurred in May 1987 when Iraqi aircraft severely damaged the USS Stark (AJIL, vol. 83, No. 3 (July 1989), p. 561).