We define reparations as: “exceptional measures that aim to redress past wrongs by improving the situation of those who have been harmed”. This definition builds on the understanding of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), but extends it beyond a human rights-based framework. It includes measures that address a broad range of wrongful harms, whether these are explicitly framed as rights violations or not. At the same time, it emphasizes the exceptional nature of reparations to reflect the widely shared view that the harm that reparations address should never have occurred and should not occur again. 

We define reparations payments as wealth transfers that are part of reparations and have been quantified in monetary terms. This definition draws on the UN’s Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation. These identify several aspects of reparations, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. Our definition combines payments labelled as “compensation” or “satisfaction”, because their economic and symbolic meanings are often inseparable. 

The RPD collects cases of reparations payments pledged and/or paid from 1 January 1945 onwards. This starting date was chosen to reflect the changing nature of reparations in the second half of the twentieth century. The database includes cases identified during the data collection process up to 31 December 2024.

2.a. Integration of existing databases

As a first step, we reviewed eight existing databases and repositories that document reparations, transitional justice measures, or peace agreements. Relevant entries from these sources were reviewed and integrated into the RPD. These databases are:

• The Political Apologies and Reparations Archive

• The Transitional Justice Evaluation Tools (TJET)

• Reparations in the United States

• The Nuhanovic Foundation’s Reparations Database

• The Transitional Justice Data Base (TJDB)

• The Peace Agreements Database (PA-X)

• The ICC Legal Tools Database

• The Peace Accords Matrix (PAM)

2.b. Literature review

To identify additional cases, we conducted a semi-systematic literature review, adapting the “Online Media Search Guide” developed for the Political Apologies Database (Schaafsma & Zoodsma, 2021) to fit the scope of the RPD.

First, we searched for key terms related to reparations payments - including “paid reparations”, “received reparations”, “reparations agreement”, “reparation payments”, and “reparations payments” - using Google News and Lexis Nexis (Nexis Uni).

Second, to improve global coverage, we conducted targeted searches for every country and economy listed by the World Bank. Each country or economy name was combined with the term “reparation payments” using Google and Google News. This step aimed to ensure that cases from all world regions were captured.

In addition to the structured searches, further cases were identified incidentally during the research process through related literature and references. All identified entries were then reviewed and screened for duplicates, and additional searches were conducted where necessary to verify information and complete missing data. 

Cases were included in the database when they met the following conditions:

• Definition of reparations payments: The database is guided by the project’s definition of reparations payments (see above).

• Defined scope of harms: We established a list of harms addressed by reparations, drawing initially on the categories of human rights violations featured in the Political Apologies Database (Schaafsma and Zoodsma, 2021). As the RPD advanced, this list was further adapted by merging certain categories and adding others where relevant. A complete list and definitions of the included harms are provided in the RPD codebook. 

• Temporal scope: The RPD covers reparations cases committed between 1 January 1945 and 31 December 2024.

• Victim- and survivor-centred approach: In cases where classification was ambiguous - particularly when distinguishing between routine compensation and exceptional reparative measures - entries were included only when at least one credible source explicitly framed the measure as reparations.

Standard or routine compensation schemes not explicitly framed as reparations were excluded from the database. Private or corporate compensation payments were only included when explicitly described as reparations by reliable sources, such as existing reparations-focused databases and other authoritative references.

All entries were first reviewed and assessed individually by the research team. Selected data fields were subsequently populated automatically in cases where interpretation was minimal (e.g. regional assignment and currency conversion). Automation processes were implemented in Python, with the assistance of AI tools (such as ChatGPT) to support script development and troubleshooting. 

The RPD has the following limitations:

• Scope: Private compensation schemes, settlements, court-ordered payments, and contributions by corporations or other non-state actors were not systematically included. This is largely due to their sheer volume, as well as limited transparency, inconsistent reporting practices, and the difficulty of accessing reliable and comparable information across cases.

• Language and search: Data collection was conducted primarily in English and relied heavily on Google-based searches and accessible digital sources. As a result, sources in other languages, non-digitized archival materials, and information from regions where Google is less widely used or accessible may be underrepresented.

• Data availability and quality: The availability and quality of data vary significantly across cases, countries, and historical periods. In some instances, key information—such as payment amounts, numbers of beneficiaries, or implementation dates—was incomplete, inconsistent, or not publicly available.

• Approximations and interpretative decisions: Where precise figures or details were unavailable or inconsistent across sources, the research team relied on the best available evidence and made careful approximations, adhering as closely as possible to consistent methodological criteria and established practices in reporting financial commitments and disbursements, such as those used in Official Development Assistance (ODA) by the OECD. 

• Currency conversion, valuation, and reported amounts: Financial amounts reported across different currencies and time periods were converted to enable comparison. These conversions rely on available exchange rate data and may not fully capture differences in purchasing power, inflation, or broader economic conditions.

• Evolving information: Reparations programs continue to evolve, with new initiatives emerging and existing ones expanding or changing over time. While the RPD seeks to document these developments as comprehensively as possible, it functions as a repository rather than a continuously updated observatory. Entries therefore reflect the best available information at the time of compilation and may not capture subsequent developments.