This paper assesses compensation programmes for victims of the principal U.S. Military herbicide, Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam War period 1961 to 1971. Whilst positive steps forward in the formal recognition and compensation of victims, both the Vietnamese and to a lesser extent, the American programme, are found to fall short in meeting the following principles of compensation. That is, in the form of monetary and non-monetary benefits to all affected persons at varying levels of disability on an ongoing basis over the life cycle.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
10-80 Organizing Committee, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment . 1993. “The II International Conference on Herbicides in War—The Long Term Effects on Man and Nature.”Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam .
2.
Ackerman, F. , Goodwin, N. , Dougherty, L. , and K., Gallagher , eds. 2000. The Political Economy of Inequality. Washington, DC: Island Press .
3.
Agence France Presse . 2004. “Legal Action by Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims was Inevitable.” February, 9. Accessed February, 11, 2004 (http://sq.news.yahoo.com/040208/1/3huxq.html).
4.
Atkinson, A.1995. Incomes and the Welfare State: Essays on Britain and Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press .
5.
BBC News . 1998. “Agent Orange blights Vietnam.” December 3. Accessed June 6, 2002 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/English/health/newsid-227000/227467).
6.
Dollar, D. , P. Glewwe , J. Litvack , eds. 1998. Household Welfare and Vietnam’s Transition. Washington DC: The World Bank .
7.
Environmental Agents Service, Department of Veteran Affairs . 2001. “Agent Orange Brief A1: General Information.”Washington, DC: United States of America .
8.
Environmental Agents Service, Department of Veteran Affairs, United States of America . 1999. Agent Orange: Information for Veterans who Served in Viet Nam. General Information A1, September.
9.
Environmental Agents Service, Department of Veteran Affairs, United States of America . 1997. “Agent Orange: and VA Disability Compensation; B1.”Agent Orange Brief, January.
10.
Global News Wire—Asia Africa Intelligence Wire . 2002. “Poor People to have Access to Free Health Services Next Year.” Vietnam News Brief, December 2.
11.
Green Cross International . 1999. “The Green Cross Agent Orange Campaign.”Geneva : Green Cross International Accessed June 6, 2002 (http://www.gci.ch/GreenCrossPrograms/legacy/Vietnam/agentorange.html).
12.
Joint Report of the Government of Vietnam - Donor Working Group on Public Expenditure Review . 1999. “Vietnam Managing Public Resources Better—Public Expenditure Review 2000.” Vol. 1. Hanoi: Vietnam Development Information Center . [Referred in text as Donor Working Group on Public Expenditure Review.]
13.
Joint Report of the Government of Vietnam—Donor—NGO Poverty Working Group . 1999. “Vietnam Development Report 2000: Attacking Poverty.”Hanoi: The World Bank .
14.
Institute of Medicine, U.S.2000. Updated Summary of Findings in Occupational, Environmental, and Veterans Studies Regarding the Association between Specific Health Outcomes and Exposure to Herbicides. Accessed July 2001 (http://books.nap.edu/html/veterans2000/reportbrief.pdf).
15.
Kokkoris, C., Moore and Goodman . 2004. “Text Law Suit; the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin, Phan Thi Phi Phi, Nguyen Van Quy and Nguyen Thi Thuy Nga, Plaintiffs, v. Dow Chemical Company, et al, Defendentants.” Accessed March 2, 2004 (http://www.nnn.se/vietnam/environ.htm).
16.
Meier, G.1989. Leading Issues in Economic Development. 5th ed.New York: Oxford University Press .
17.
Palmer, M.2004. “Compensation for Vietnam’s Agent Orange Victims.”The International Journal of Human Rights8(3).
18.
Palmer, M.2004b. “The legacy of Agent Orange: Empirical Evidence revealed from central Vietnam.”Social Science and Medicine (forthcoming).
19.
Rawls J.1971. A Theory of Justice. U.K.: Oxford University Press .
20.
Sen, A.1992. Inequality Reexamined. New York: Oxford University Press .
21.
Sen, A.1985. “A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty: A Reply to Professor Peter Townsend.”Oxford Economic Papers, December.
22.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam . 2002. “The Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy.”Hanoi: Socialist Republic of Vietnam . [Referred in text as CPRGS.]
23.
Stellman, J.M. , S.D. Stellman , R. Christian , T. Weber , and C. Tomasallo . 2003. “The Extent and Patterns of Usage of Agent Orange and other Herbicides in Vietnam.”Nature422: 681-687 .
24.
Tran Dinh Thanh Lam . 2004. “Agent Orange Victims Buoyed by US Lawsuit.”Inter Press News Service , February 26. Accessed March 2, 2004 (http://www.ipsnews.net).
25.
Veteran Affairs, United States of America . 2000. “Information for Veterans Who Served in Vietnam.”Agent Orange Review16(1).
26.
Vietnam Investment Review. 1999. “War Border Province’s Agent Orange Tragedy.”Ministry of Planning and Investment . Issue: 0410, August.
27.
Vietnam Investment Review. 2000. “Central Payments Approved for Victims of Agent Orange.”Ministry of Planning and Investment . Issue 0438, March.
28.
Vietnam News . 2001a. “National Assembly Mulls over Nation’s Burning Social Issues.” June 11.
29.
Vietnam News . 2001b. “Easing the Pain for Dioxin Victims.” July 5.
30.
Vietnam News . 2001c. “Samaritan Gives New Hope to Agent Orange Victims.” May 8.
31.
Zwillich, T.2001. “Researchers Fear Loss of Agent Orange Health Data.”Reuters Health, April 6.
