Comparing the slavery reparations claim to cases where limitation periods have been extended highlights the differences rather than the similarities. Holocaust reparations involved events within living memory, identified victims, identifiable perpetrator organisations, and in many cases specific property that could be traced. Japanese internment compensation involved events within living memory, identified victims, and clear state responsibility.
The slavery reparations claim involves events 200 to 400 years ago, no living victims, no identifiable chain of possession, no agreed measure of harm, and a defendant state whose legal relationship to the original perpetrators is itself contested. The temporal gap alone is sufficient to defeat any limitation period argument. No legal system has or could have limitation periods of the length required.
