text: UNRIAA, vol. 19, p. 199. - 211 -two World War61 and (c) from the end of the Seoond World War to the present day. The practice of the first period revealed a high percenkage of,cases where the form or forms of satisfaction claimed and the very manner and terms in which the demands were formulated (usually against weaker States) were offeneive to the honour, dignity and prestige of the allegedly law-breaking State. Therefore, even when any such arrogant demands had been met, the cases in question could not be considered to represent valid precedents, except in a negative sense. The practice of periods (b) end (a), on the contrary, showed (despite some exceptions) that satisfaction performed an important role among the remedies resorted to by States. This was particularly evident in cases where the injured party had suffered insults, Ill-treatment or attacks against the Head of State or Government, its diplomatic or consular representatives or its nationals. Less easily susceptible of economic assessment, these types of “prejudice” were the most typical examples of what he called moral and legal injury. This did not exclude, however, that lgal injury in particular was present among the effects of any internationally wrongful act. 390. As regarUs the nature of satisfaction, namely whether it was compensatory or punitive, the Special Rapporteur explained that the review of literature and State practice, in particular diplomatic practice, indicated the existence of various forms of satisfaction as a remedy apart from compensatory forms of remedy and partly marked by its retributive or punitive nature. Such distinction in the nature of various forms of reparation, the Special Rapporteur maintained, was not of course absolute. In his view, the function of pecuniary compensation, for example , was not entirely limited to compensating the material loss, It also had, at least, the function of
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international law and the concept of satisfaction as a remedy for internationally wrongful acts. It mentions the practice of states, diplomatic practice, and the nature of satisfaction, which suggests that it is focused on the realm of international relations and law. The text does not mention specific economic or environmental issues, nor does it seem to be related to health, education, employment, or culture. It is more concerned with the abstract concepts of satisfaction, compensation, and reparation.