Academic journal article
By Strauss, Debra M.
Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law , Vol. 38, No. 3
The time has come to extend the national approach that has been used successfully to dismantle the infrastructure of hate groups to the international realm against terrorist groups. The foundation of this approach is a private right to a cause of action apart from any military or diplomatic efforts by the government. In this Article, Professor Strauss analyzes case precedents under several federal statutes--the Antiterrorism Act of 1991, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claim Act--as well as state common-law tort claims, including aiding and abetting liability. Professor Strauss proposes an aggregate model for lawsuits by victims against terrorist groups, organizations, and state sponsors of international terrorism, combining these claims and the types of damages and defendants accessible. Professor Strauss also outlines important tools for plaintiffs in the civil battle against terrorism by exploring the obstacles to and avenues for enforcement of these judgments through the rule of international law and access to the frozen assets of terrorist states and organizations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. AN ANALYSIS OF CASE PRECEDENTS A. Antiterrorism Act of 1991 1. The Seminal Case: Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute 2. A Modern View of "International Terrorism": Estates of Ungar v. The Palestinian Authority 3. No Sovereignty for the PLO: Knox v. Palestine Liberation Organization 4. A Limitation on Personal Jurisdiction: Biton v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority 5. Defining the Scope of Coverage and Damages: Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan B. AEDPA Section 1605(a)(7) and the Flatow Amendment to the FSIA 1. A Door Opens for Victims: Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Its Progeny 2. A Partial Ban on Punitive Damages: Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba 3. A Cause of Action Against a Foreign State for Torture: Price v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 4. A Clarification of the Elements: Kilburn v. The Republic of Iran 5. Punitive Damages for an Extrajudicial Killing: Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran 6. A Contrasting View of Punitive Damages: Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran 7. Providing an Independent Claim Against a Foreign State and Broad Personal Jurisdiction: Pugh v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 8. Reining in a Private Cause of Action and Setting New Limits: Cicippio v. Islamic Republic of Iran and Its Progeny C. Other Federal Statutes: Torture Victim Protection Act and Alien Tort Claim Act D. Common-Law Tort Claims E. A Potpourri of Claims: The Recent 9/11 Case III. ENFORCEABILITY OF JUDGMENTS A. General Principles of International Law B. Executive Orders and Resistance C. Collecting the Frozen Assets: The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 1. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 2. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 IV. CONCLUSION
International terrorism has long been recognized as a serious threat to foreign and domestic security. A recent report of the Department of State shows minimal change from 2002 to 2003 in the number of terrorist incidents worldwide--a decrease from 199 attacks to 190. (1) Likewise in 2003, the overall number of reported anti-U.S. attacks remained more or less constant, with eighty-two anti-U. …