State responsibility the “full and final settlement” agreed between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States following a dispute over the destruction of an Iranian aircraft and the killing of its 290 passengers and crew.529 (12) Agreements for the payment of compensation are also frequently negotiated by States following attacks on diplomatic premises, whether in relation to damage to the embassy itself530 or injury to its personnel.531 Damage caused to other public property, such as roads and infrastructure, has also been the subject of compensation claims.532 In many cases, these payments have been made on an ex gratia or a without prejudice basis, without any admission of responsibility.533 (13) Another situation in which States may seek compensation for damage suffered by the State as such is where costs are incurred in responding to pollution damage. Following the crash of the Soviet Cosmos 954 satellite on Canadian territory in January 1978, Canada’s claim for compensation for expenses incurred in locating, recovering, removing and testing radioactive debris and cleaning up affected areas was based “jointly and separately on (a) the relevant international agreements … and (b) general principles of international law”.534 Canada asserted that it was applying “the relevant criteria established by general principles of international law according to which fair compensation is to be paid, by including in its claim only those costs that are reasonable, proximately caused by the intrusion of the satellite and deposit of debris and capable of being calculated with a reasonable degree of certainty”.535 The claim was eventually settled in April 1981 when the parties agreed on an ex gratia payment of Can$ 3 million (about 50 per cent of the amount claimed).536 529 Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (see footnote 523 above) (order of discontinuance following settlement). For the settlement agreement itself, see the General Agreement on the Settlement of Certain International Court of Justice and Tribunal Cases (1996), attached to the Joint Request for Arbitral Award on Agreed Terms, Iran-U.S. C.T.R., vol. 32, pp. 213–216 (1996). 530 See, e.g., the Exchange of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the losses incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom and by British nationals as a result of the disturbances in Indonesia in September 1963 (1 December 1966) for the payment by Indonesia of compensation for, inter alia, damage to the British Embassy during mob violence (Treaty Series No. 34 (1967)) (London, HM Stationery Office) and the payment by Pakistan to the United States of compensation for the sacking of the United States Embassy in Islamabad in 1979 (RGDIP, vol. 85 (1981), p. 880). 531 See, e.g., Claim of Consul Henry R. Myers (United States v. Salvador) (1890), Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, pp. 64–65; (1892), pp. 24–44 and 49–51; (1893), pp. 174–179, 181–182 and 184; and Whiteman, Damages in International Law (footnote 347 above), pp. 80–81. 532 For examples, see Whiteman, Damages in International Law (footnote 347 above), p. 81. 533 See, e.g., the United States-China agreement providing for an ex gratia payment of US$ 4.5 million, to be given to the families of those killed and to those injured in the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade on 7 May 1999, AJIL, vol. 94, No. 1 (January 2000), p. 127. 534 The claim of Canada against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for damage caused by Cosmos 954, 23 January 1979 (see footnote 459 above), pp. 899 and 905. 535 Ibid., p. 907. 536 Protocol between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in respect of the claim for damages caused by the Satellite “Cosmos 954” (Moscow, 2 April 1981), United Nations, Treaty Series, 101 (14) Compensation claims for pollution costs have been dealt with by UNCC in the context of assessing Iraq’s liability under international law “for any direct loss, damage—including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources … as a result of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait”.537 The UNCC Governing Council decision 7 specifies various heads of damage encompassed by “environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources”.538 (15) In cases where compensation has been awarded or agreed following an internationally wrongful act that causes or threatens environmental damage, payments have been directed to reimbursing the injured State for expenses reasonably incurred in preventing or remedying pollution, or to providing compensation for a reduction in the value of polluted property.539 However, environmental damage will often extend beyond that which can be readily quantified in terms of clean-up costs or property devaluation. Damage to such environmental values (biodiversity, amenity, etc.—sometimes referred to as “nonuse values”) is, as a matter of principle, no less real and compensable than damage to property, though it may be difficult to quantify. (16) Within the field of diplomatic protection, a good deal of guidance is available as to appropriate compensation standards and methods of valuation, especially as concerns personal injury and takings of, or damage to, tangible property. It is well established that a State may seek compensation in respect of personal injuries suffered by its officials or nationals, over and above any direct injury it may itself have suffered in relation to the same event. Compensable personal injury encompasses not only associated material losses, such as loss of earnings and earning capacity, medical expenses and the like, but also non-material damage suffered by the individual (sometimes, though not universally, referred to as “moral damage” in national legal systems). Non-material damage is generally understood to encompass loss of loved ones, pain and suffering as well as the affront to sensibilities associated with an intrusion on the person, home or private life. No less than material injury sustained by the injured State, non-material damage is financially assessable and may be the subject of a claim of compensation, as stressed in the “Lusitania” case.540 The umpire considered that international law provides compensation for mental vol. 1470, No. 24934, p. 269. See also ILM, vol. 20, No. 3 (May 1981), p. 689. 537 Security Council resolution 687 (1991), para. 16 (see footnote 461 above). 538 Decision 7 of 16 March 1992, Criteria for additional categories of claims (S/AC.26/1991/7/Rev.1), para 35. 539 See the decision of the arbitral tribunal in the Trail Smelter case (footnote 253 above), p. 1911, which provided compensation to the United States for damage to land and property caused by sulphur dioxide emissions from a smelter across the border in Canada. Compensation was assessed on the basis of the reduction in value of the affected land. 540 See footnote 514 above. International tribunals have frequently granted pecuniary compensation for moral injury to private parties. For example, the Chevreau case (see footnote 133 above) (English translation in AJIL, vol. 27, No. 1 (January 1933), p. 153); the Gage case, UNRIAA, vol. IX (Sales No. 59.V.5), p. 226 (1903); the Di Caro case, ibid., vol. X (Sales No. 60.V.4), p. 597 (1903); and the Heirs of Jean Maninat case, ibid., p. 55 (1903).