This article compares the policies of compensation implemented after five cases of forced migration in the 20th century. Compensation for property left behind was discussed in all these cases, but only implemented in some. One might think that compensation may have been easier when “abandoned” property was available and some form of “exchange” was engineered, but the relative failure of the Greek, Turkish, Palestinian, and Israeli cases and the relative success of the German ones suggest that the opposite may be true. This may be due to compensation systems being based on the principle of redistributory justice, rather than restoration of pre-conflict levels of wealth. Moreover, I argue that unilateral compensation schemes worked better than multilateral ones. However, in the long run, the most important factor impacting the refugees’ successful integration does not seem to have been compensation, but economic development, the granting of citizenship, and civil rights.

本文比较了20世纪五起强迫移民事件后所实施的补偿政策。所有这些案例都讨论了遗留财产的补偿，但仅在某些案例中得到实施。人们可能会认为，当“被遗弃”的财产可用并且设计了某种形式的“交换”时，赔偿可能会更容易，但希腊、土耳其、巴勒斯坦和以色列案例的相对失败以及德国案例的相对成功表明事实可能恰恰相反。这可能是因为补偿制度是基于再分配正义的原则，而不是恢复冲突前的财富水平。此外，我认为单边补偿计划比多边补偿计划效果更好。但从长远来看，影响难民成功融入社会的最重要因素似乎并不是补偿，而是经济发展、公民身份和公民权利。