Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

A Natural Progression of Restrictive Immunity: Why the JASTA Amendment Does Not Violate International Law

Show simple item record

dc.contributor
dc.contributor.author Kohan, Eric T.
dc.date.accessioned 2017-10-12T16:01:22Z
dc.date.available 2017-10-12T16:01:22Z
dc.date.issued 2017-10
dc.identifier.citation 92 Wash. L. Rev. 1515 (2017) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-0617
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/1731
dc.description Volume 92, no.3, October 2017 en_US
dc.description.abstract On September 11, 2001, terrorists from extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial flights and flew two into the World Trade Center towers in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Many sought justice for friends and loved ones harmed in the attacks by bringing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia. These lawsuits alleged that Saudi Arabian leaders knowingly donated to charities that funded al-Qaeda which helped the group to pay for the September 11th terror attacks. The Second Circuit, however, dismissed the lawsuit on sovereign immunity grounds in 2008. Frustrated with the ruling, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). JASTA amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow lawsuits against foreign states when the plaintiffs allege the foreign state intentionally funded, sponsored, or facilitated intentional acts of terrorism on United States soil. This amendment has received global criticism for both its practical and legal effect on the rest of the world. The harshest critics claim that the United States is now in violation of international law, bolstered by a recent decision from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Jurisdictional Immunities of the State. This Comment argues that the JASTA amendment to sovereign immunity does not violate international law or the ICJ decision. Due to the development of state immunity and the particular protections provided to sovereign acts in the ICJ decision, the JASTA amendment only denies state immunity when the foreign state is acting as a private citizen. Therefore, the JASTA amendment does not violate international law. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Washington Law Review, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Comment en_US
dc.title A Natural Progression of Restrictive Immunity: Why the JASTA Amendment Does Not Violate International Law en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2017 by Washington Law Review Association. en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account