SOME LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE JUSTICE AGAINST SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT
https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-1-40-57
Abstract
Following the lead of the U.S. Senate on May 17, 2016, the House of Representatives of the United States of America unanimously adopted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which will allow victims of terrorism to bring class actions against any state directly or indirectly involved in terrorist acts against American citizens. U.S. president Barack Obama attempted to impose his veto against this legislation, but was overridden by both houses in September, 2016. As a result, the Act entered into law, risking a real revolution in international law with potentially very serious political consequences.
While it may be anticipated that those countries directly complicit in terrorism will see their assets – including their sovereign assets in the United States – seized to finance the compensation of the victims, such prosecutions will undoubtedly also involve European countries, many of which have themselves been targeted by terrorism. This is especially likely when their nationals are involved in terrorist acts.
There is now a great risk that U.S. law will unilaterally modify several fundamental principles of international law, such as the sovereign immunity of states, creating genuine legal conflict in which victims of terrorism will seek redress from all states, including allied nations or countries that have themselves been victims of terror.
About the Author
W. Fahmy
Pharos University
Egypt
Egypt
Senior Lecturer, Head of the Department of Public International Law, Faculty of Legal Studies and International Relations,
Canal El Mahmoudia St., Alexandria, 21311
References
1. Caplan L. State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens: ACritique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory, 97 American Journal of International Law (2003).
2. Cassim F. The Right to Meaningful and Informed Participation in the Criminal Process (Thesis, Pretoria: University of South Africa, 2009).
3. Currat P. Les crimes contre l’humanité dans le statut de la cour pénale internationale (Paris: Harmattan, 2006).
4. Dimitrovska M. The Concept of International Responsibility of States in the International Public Law System, 1 Journal of Liberty and International Affairs (2015).
5. Finke J. Sovereign Immunity: Rule, Comity or Something Else?, 4 European Journal of International Law (2011).
6. Gluck J.A. The Customary International Law of State-Sponsored International Abduction and United States Courts, 44 Duke Law Journal (1994).
7. Heb B. The International Law Commission’s Draft Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 4 European Journal of International Law (1993).
8. Hossain K. The Concept of Jus Cogens and the Obligation under the U.N. Charter, 3 Santa Clara Journal of International Law (2005).
9. Jacobs J.B. Admissibility of the Defendant’s Criminal Records at Trial, 4 Beijing Law Review (2013).
10. Knuchel S. State Immunity and the Promise of Jus Cogens, 9 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights (2011).
11. Kolb R. La bonne foi en droit international: Contribution à l’étude des principes généraux de droit (Genève: Graduate Institute Publications, 2000).
12. Lenoble J. Responsabilité Internationale des Etats et Controle Territorial, 16 Revue Belge du Droit International (1981–1982).
13. Michell P. English-Speaking Justice: Evolving Responses to Transnational Forcible Abduction after Alvarez-Machain, 29 Cornell International Law Journal (1996).
14. Nagan W.P. & Haddad A.M. Sovereignty in Theory and Practice, 13 San Diego Journal of International Law (2012).
15. Nagan W.P. & Root J.L. The Emerging Restrictions on Sovereign Immunity: Peremptory Norms of International Law, the U.N. Charter, and the Application of Modern Communications Theory, 38 North Carolina Journal of International Law (2013).
16. Philippe X. The Principles of Universal Jurisdiction and Complementarity: How Do the Two Principles Intermesh?, 88 International Review of the Red Cross (2006).
17. Roussillon H. Contrôle de constitutionnalité et droit fondamentaux, l’efficacité des droit fondamentaux in L’effectivité des droits fondamentaux dans les pays de la communauté francophone (Paris: EDICEF-AUPELF, 1998).
18. Sinclair I. The Law of Sovereign Immunity. Recent Developments, 167 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (1980).
19. Smith D.C. Beyond Indeterminacy and Self-Contradiction in Law: Transnational Abductions and Treaty Interpretation in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 6 European Journal of International Law (1995).
20. Sofaer A.D. On the Necessity of Pre-emption, 14 European Journal of International Law (2003).
21. Tomuschat C. National Institutions and State Immunity, 4 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (2011).
22. Trone J. The Stimson Doctrine of Non-recognition of Territorial Conquest, 9 Queensland Law Journal (1996).
23. Vázquez C.M. Altmann v. Austria and the Retroactivity of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 3 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2005).
24. Watherall T. Jus Cogens and Sovereign Immunity: Reconciling Divergence in Contemporary Jurisprudence, 46 Georgetown Journal of International Law (2015).
Review
For citations:
Fahmy W. SOME LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE JUSTICE AGAINST SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT. BRICS Law Journal. 2017;4(1):40-57. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2017-4-1-40-57
Views: 1786
Email this article 