Can Tort Law Handle War? Reflections on Private Litigation for War-Related Damages in Ukraine

Background: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has caused widespread destruction and immense harm to civilians, prompting individuals and legal entities to seek compensation through tort litigation. The pressing question arises: can tort law offer an effective remedy for war-related damage? While international law affirms the obligation to make reparation for internationally wrongful acts, individual victims often face significant legal and practical barriers when seeking redress in domestic courts. This study examines whether private tort claims can serve as a viable path to reparation for victims of war-related harm, using the jurisprudence of Ukrainian courts as a case study. Methods: This study employs a qualitative doctrinal methodology grounded in case law analysis. It examines a broad range of Ukrainian court decisions involving tort claims brought by individuals against both the Russian Federation and the Ukrainian state. The analysis distinguishes between claims filed under specific legislative provisions—such as the Law of Ukraine “On Combating Terrorism”—and those based on general tort principles. The study also traces the legal evolution regarding Russia’s jurisdictional immunity and explores issues related to procedural fairness, the substantiation of claims, and the enforceability of judgments. Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals that private tort litigation has proven largely ineffective in practice and conceptually ill-suited to war-related claims. Although recent rulings have lifted Russia’s jurisdictional immunity, serious challenges remain: judgments are consistently not enforced, evidentiary standards are inconsistently applied, and individual litigation fails to ensure equitable distribution of limited resources. Moreover, lawsuits against Ukraine under both specific statutes and general tort law have also yielded limited results due to legislative gaps and the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms. The study concludes that private tort claims, while symbolically important, cannot serve as a sustainable vehicle for post-war justice. Instead, a centralised reparations mechanism, such as the emerging International Compensation Mechanism, offers a more just and effective model for distributing reparations in a manner consistent with principles of distributive justice.