Interesting concept though I think it might work just as well as a campaign of moral suasion as a diplomatic-legal one. The only states that are going to pay compensation anyway are rich ones who also are inclined to acknowledge the moral argument
Most military conflicts are intrastate and not interstate or are a state vs. a non-state irregular force; and of those, the governments responsible are often poor and cannot really even afford the war itself.
Consider Chad fending off border incursions by the Janjaweed or Rwanda fighting Hutu militias. The Sudan, of course, would hardly be likely to compensate Fur tribesmen or southern Christians it regards as enemies. Should Lebanon foot the bill when Hezbollah fires a rocket into Israel? Pakistan when al Qaida and Taliban fighters kill a village teacher in Afghanistan? These are all questions that such a standard would raise.
I find myself largely in agreement with zenpundit (something that doesn't happen too often). The U.S. government's trust fund for civilian victims in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would guess, is unlikely to become a precedent for a future global norm. But don't hold me to that prediction. That way I can continue to comment here without accountability. 
Zenpundit writes: "The only states that are going to pay compensation anyway are rich ones who also are inclined to acknowledge the moral argument. Most military conflicts are intrastate and not interstate or are a state vs. a non-state irregular force; and of those, the governments responsible are often poor and cannot really even afford the war itself."
Ah, but they find the money to fight the wars, don't they?
Anyway, all kinds of countries sign onto global standards of morality they can't afford to implement. It's not necessarily about making it actually happening, at the norm development stage it's about articulating a standard. The standard ideally should make governments less sanguine about inflicting "collateral damage." It may well save some lives on the margins; it may generate some actual payments (after all, we 'rich countries' are hardly abdicating the use of military foce!)
But the main goal of norm-building is simply to alter the set of expectations and the moral rhetoric. Translating that into practice is the norm implementation stage... which is always tricky, but rarely succeeds at all without establishing a moral claim in the first place.
The logistical nightmare of determining who is entitled to compensation and how much they should be compensated are staggering. There are so many victims, and often times they are trapped between the two warring factions. The opportunities for fraud and manipulation are also huge. In short I don't see this idea getting to far.
"Ah, but they find the money to fight the wars, don't they?"
Not every war is a war of choice, even for states. In some instances the choice is either to fight or to relinquish sovereignty and fail as a state. Failed states, if we look at the record of the Congo, West Africa, 1980's Lebanon, present day Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan, can be worse places than states fighting an insurgency or another state.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan.com
