text: Xt was, in the view of these members, unclear, under the approach adopted, what consequences would emerge i&4 cases of violation, for example, of a disarmament treaty. Would the so-called injured State, in addition to the right to suspend or terminate the treaty, have a right to pecuniary compensation as well? The problem with too much reliance on torts cases was that those cases involved real interference6 with property, rights or interest of the injured party, However, in most treaty violations, one confronted interferences with the “expectations” of the so-called injured State. These members were not certain how the Special Rapporteur’s approach, namely that the injured party should be put in as good a position as it would have been if the wrongful act had not occurred. would apply to cases other than torts. It was noted that in State practice under GATT, which protected economic rights and thereby created economic expectations, violations of the treaty did not seem to lead to pecuniary compensation. Also, in case of damage caused in armed conflicts, State practice did not support the presumption that the State which began the armed conflict should pay all the costs for reconstruction. ’ In the view of these members, theea matters were not sufficiently explored by the Special Rapporteur, and hence limited his approach to remedies. 337. Commenting on these remarks, the Special Rapporteur stressed that while he still maintained that many of the rules on reparation were developed through the practice concerning injuries to nationals and their property, he had not relied solely on that practice. With regard to both pecuniary compensation and satisfaction, he had also taken into account practice in other areas. As regards in particular the “expectations” mentioned by one member, he was not sure that those were matters necessarily to be covered by
analysis: The text appears to be discussing legal and theoretical aspects of international relations, specifically the consequences of violating treaties and the concept of reparation. The language used is formal and technical, indicating a focus on international law and diplomacy. The discussion revolves around the concept of "expectations" and "pecuniary compensation" in the context of treaty violations, suggesting a connection to international trade and economic relations.