I wrote a piece about the JASTA (Justice Against Supporters of Terrorism Act) which allows families of victims of 9/11 attacks to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for compensation on the grounds of providing ‘support’ to the murderers of Americans. But, I did not write until it was clear to me, and other researchers and analysts, what the act entails. Now that the controversial act has been passed despite objection by the Obama administration, and then turned into a subject of attack, criticism and inaccurate analysis, it is high time to revisit it.
The JASTA targets Saudi Arabia, but unlike what many writers and analysts believe, its strategic impact goes beyond the notion of the KSA-USA relationship, deeply affecting international relations. The act constitutes a blatant violation of the principle of the sovereign immunity—a pillar of international relations since the famous Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and even before in the legislation in ancient Rome. The Charter of the United Nations states that the property and immunity of states from jurisdiction is acceptable in general, as a principle of customary international law. The UN Charter states that the United Nations is based on the principle of ‘sovereign equality’ among all of its members; therefore; no State has jurisdiction over another State Member of the organization.
Striking enough is that the United States itself has defended the principle of the sovereign immunity of the states historically; including the lawsuit brought against the United States in Italy because of the activities of the CIA there, and the principle of the sovereign immunity of the states was applied. Also, as is the case in many similar international issues, the United States is considered one of the countries that are most benefiting from the principle of sovereign immunity.
Clearly, the bill of the Congress has focused on the demands of the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks, ignoring other dimensions. First, of course, there is the negative impact on international relations in general, which is, for the United States, a highly sensitive matter due to the US being the leader state of the new world order, expected to take into account the international laws and legislations guaranteeing security and stability.
It is true that the law provides opportunities for the prosecution of any foreign country in any case of demand for financial compensation for physical injuries and damages to individuals or property or death in the United States as a result of a terrorist act or supposed negligence or acts of foreign countries, officials or representatives of States, regardless of whether the terrorist attacks were intended or not, through lawsuits in US courts. However, It does provide reverse or parallel opportunities of such potential impact and damage.
In addition to undermining one of the foundations of international relations, and opening the door to ‘chaos’ by violating the sovereign immunity of the states and related international principles (‘national statehood’, sovereignty, the separation between States and other organizations and entities), the US legislator seems to forget that Washington can be as well subjected to the law before courts of other countries. Similar international terrorism lawsuits can be brought according to local laws against the US, causing damage to American citizens themselves, even if the United States is not accused of sponsoring terrorism. The compensation mafia inside and outside of the US can use the controversial law aggressively, turning the area of international relations into a chaotic battlefield.
Many specialists know there are legal competence standards and limits to legal liability, an issue totally inconsistent with the Congress tendency to become an international legislator whose legislation is binding to the rest of the countries. The grounds of the JASTA are clearly complicated. Nevertheless, it can be destructive to the movement of investments and the flight of capital to other major markets. Voices in the Middle East are now calling for divestment and withdrawal of funds and accounts from the United States and other European countries, which may seem unreasonable and impractical but still clutters the atmosphere of the global economy and the movement of international investments to the detriment of everyone, especially the major markets attractive for these investments.
