Confiscating Russian Assets (Now?)
As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues and the amount of destruction to lives and property grows exponentially, a question that has come up is whether Russian assets overseas should be confiscated and made available to those who the Russian invasion has harmed (e.g., here). The list of those is growing larger minute by minute: refugees, families of those who have died, people whose homes and livelihoods have been blown apart and on and on and on.
The amount of harm that Mr. Putin's craziness has caused is already far greater than the value of the frozen assets -- in the many trillions whereas the frozen assets (even if one adds in the oligarch properties) is in the hundreds of billions. But should we wait until Mr. Putin has taken whatever portion of Ukraine he wants (e.g., 20-30%), installed some puppet government, and is finally willing to negotiate for peace? At that point, as part of the negotiation, he is going to want to ask for his frozen assets back. And the leaders of the countries where the frozen assets are located, who will be desperate for peace, might be tempted to give the assets back. Let us not kid ourselves. The political flesh is weak. If those politicians see themselves garnering advantage at the ballot box by negotiating a quick peace (to the detriment of the claims or refugees and others), they will do that. So, maybe there is an argument to confiscating the assets now while there is political will to do so.
On the other hand, there is the small matter of the law. Due process before taking people's property and all that. Does it allow for the confiscation of the property of a sovereign engaging in an egregious violation of international law by invading a neighbor? There is the proverbial slippery slope of countries confiscating the property of other sovereigns whose behavior has displeased them without first ensuring that they are legally entitled to.
To my mind, these are fascinating questions to which there are not clear answers.
Two giants of the legal academy, Larry Tribe and Paul Stephan have been debating this in the context of what Mr. Biden is allowed to do. The assets can be frozen. But can they be confiscated?
Here is the abstract of Paul's superb new paper that describes the issues:
This article addresses the legal issues that the United States would confront were it to move from freezing to seizing. It looks first at the executive branch’s existing legal authority to confiscate foreign property. It considers legislative proposals to extend that authority. Both existing law and possible future legislation face constraints under constitutional law. These constraints are unique to the United States but reflect principles of legality and due process that western states generally embrace. Finally, it provides a snapshot of the international legal issues that seizure of Russian state assets might present.
First and foremost, existing law does not permit the executive branch to dispose of Russian state assets in advance of a settlement with that state. A civil process exists to forfeit assets to the state, including those of state-owned entities, but that entails resort to the courts and requires some evidence of criminality. Legislation currently under consideration in the United States would enhance that process but not abandon it. It would not apply to the largest portion of assets, the deposits of the Russian Central Bank in US financial institutions, absent some proof that those deposits can be traced to criminal activity. US constitutional guarantees against expropriation in the absence of compensation and of civil forfeiture in the absence of due process almost certainly apply.
Finally, the seizure of assets belonging to the Russian state outside of normal criminal and regulatory processes would violate international law. What international law probably would permit, however, is the use of these assets to satisfy legal judgments rendered against the Russian Federation by duly constituted international investment tribunals established under treaties to which Russia is a party. The United States and other countries in the West might explore ways of encouraging the beneficiaries of these awards, both present and future, to devote their recoveries to Ukrainian reconstruction.
- Feeds Categories: