international civil-law liability damages laws-of-war
What entity is legally obliged to compensate for damage accidentally inflicted at a non-belligerent state territory during military conflict?
<p>The question is based on recent events:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Yesterday (15th Nov 2022) a supposedly stray missile hit Polish
territory, causing loss of life (2 fatalities) and property damage.
Poland is non-belligerent state in the conflict between Russia and
Ukraine, while its neutrality may be challenged.  At the moment it is
unknown whether it is a stray Russian missile intended to hit target
in Ukraine or Ukrainian one which failed to intercept a Russian missile.
Deliberate targeting of Polish ground is considered unlikely.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So we have a country A invaded by the country B.  B launches its missiles
against targets in A, A attempts to intercept them.  A stray missile flies
into territory of non-belligerent country C and inflicts damage.  What entity
is legally obliged to compensate for the damage (state A, state B, their
embassies, state C, nobody)?</p>
<p>Does it matter:</p>
<ul>
<li>who launched the missile (A or B),</li>
<li>whether C is strictly neutral or supported either side of the conflict somehow (e.g. delivering war materials)?</li>
</ul>

<h2>None</h2>
<p>There is no legal obligation of any country to fix any damage in another. Any compensation or apologies are acts of politics, which is off-topic.</p>
<p>The Customs of war, codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions say you shall not harm non-involved countries. Still, they contain no punitive measures against a country or its government, especially none for accidents. They allow only suing individuals for war crimes in front of the Hague Tribunal, which requires such an event to be deliberate.</p>
<h4>but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ATCA</a> et al.?</h4>
<p><strong>NO!</strong> In general, no Country or government can be sued in its official functions unless its own laws allow it, and only in its <strong>own</strong> courts but for a few exceptions. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_immunity" rel="nofollow noreferrer">That is State Immunity!</a></p>
<p>And there is a very specific law that codifies that you <strong>can't sue a different country in the US</strong> but for very small exceptions under the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">FSIA</a>. ATCA could allow suing an <strong>individual</strong>, but even ATCA can only very rarely grab hold of persons or corporations that do not have connections to the US. In exactly <strong>one</strong> case it was successfully used to sue another state.</p>
<p>And <strong>neither</strong> law will ensure that the target country pays a verdict - the one case where ACTA was used, the case of Warmbier v. [North] Korea 356 F. Supp. 3d 30 (D.D.C. 2018), was never paid by North Korea, neither voluntarily, nor under pressure. It took a North Korean cargo vessel that was seized <em>by the US</em> and then auctioned off <em>by the US</em> to pay the Warmbiers. The case is not very not exemplary for suing states under it, let alone precedent for that.</p>
<p>However, Warmbier <strong>is</strong> showing the main problem: <strong>You can't make another state pay any verdict you get in another country's court unless they want to.</strong></p>
