Reparations payments are commonly measured as either paid versus not paid, or present versus absent. I argue that this approach causes researchers to overlook systematic variation in the types of abuses that governments include in their reparations commitments. This article makes the case for revising quantitative reparations indicators to reflect the fact that governments often promise and/or pay reparations for some human rights violations and not others. Using original data on reparations promises for nine types of state-sanctioned human rights abuses committed during internal conflicts or dictatorships that occurred in twenty-seven countries in Europe between 1939 and 2006, I show that reparations promise rates vary by type of abuse. I also show that they vary over time as human rights norms change, meaning that a static designation of “paid” or “not paid” is incompatible with the dynamism of reparations programs.

赔偿金通常以已支付与未支付、或在场与缺席来衡量。我认为，这种方法导致研究人员忽视了政府在其赔偿承诺中所包含的虐待类型的系统性差异。本文提出了修改定量赔偿指标的理由，以反映政府经常承诺和/或支付某些侵犯人权行为而不是其他侵犯人权行为的赔偿这一事实。我使用了 1939 年至 2006 年间欧洲 27 个国家在内部冲突或独裁统治期间发生的九种国家批准的侵犯人权行为的赔偿承诺原始数据，结果表明，赔偿承诺率因侵犯行为的类型而异。我还表明，随着人权规范的变化，它们会随着时间的推移而变化，这意味着“付费”或“未付费”的静态指定与赔偿计划的动态性不相容。