By Blake White
On September 28, 2016, Congress overrode President Barack Obama’s veto against the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA), making the bill a law. JASTA gives federal courts the ability to use personal jurisdiction to prosecute other countries for supporting terrorism against the U.S., even if our government has not declared the state a “sponsor of terrorism.” Previously, individuals could only sue another country for terrorism-induced harm if it held that designation. Now, an individual U.S. citizen victimized by a terrorist attack can file charges against a foreign state.
Although this act garnered approval from a majority from congress, there are some serious negative consequences that will be detrimental to American foreign policy. This law has the potential to sour U.S. relations with other countries (especially Saudi Arabia) and defies the international law of Sovereign Immunity.
A recently released classified report indicates that Saudi Arabia may have had a part in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With this new law, U.S. citizens could file charges the Saudi government, even though it is not a designated “State Sponsor of Terrorism.” Saudi Arabia threatened that, if the law passed, the country would begin to renege on its investments in the U.S., putting a grand total of $117 billion at risk. If Saudi Arabia were to follow through on this, this would certainly hurt the U.S. economy. Beyond Saudi Arabia, this legislation could impact other U.S. foreign ties. In his explanation of why he vetoed the bill, Obama stated that “JASTA would upset longstanding international principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules that, if applied globally, could have serious implications for U.S. national interests.” Governments should reserve the right to prosecute other nations if there are offenses made, such as placing sanctions.
Handing authority to its citizens to punish other countries will leave foreign policy actions beyond the government's control. Eventually, if other nations continue to rebuke the U.S., the government will either have to remove the law or take the risk of continuing to damage foreign ties.
If this were the only issue, then there may still be reason in passing this bill, so that those who were harmed can receive repayment from states who sponsored terrorism. However, this law breaks the international law of Sovereign Immunity. Sovereign Immunity “is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution." [1] This principle of international law essentially protects states from being sued from foreign citizens. In turn, this law protects government officials as well. CIA Director John Brennan stated that “The principle of sovereign immunity protects U.S. officials every day, and is rooted in reciprocity, (…) If we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the United States—and few institutions would be at greater risk than CIA."
JASTA will further deteriorate the image of the U.S. and degrade the legitimacy of international law if it continues to undermine law held by the global community.
Allowing citizens to be involved in sensitive matters of international policy can prove detrimental to cooperation between the U.S. and its allies. Instead of ignoring the principle of sovereign immunity, the U.S. should reserve the right to act internationally and allow international courts like the UN International Court of Justice to appropriate just punishments to states who commit heinous acts of terrorism. To leave citizens with the power to fracture ties with our partners will prove to have few if any positive outcomes.
Blake White is a senior at Utah State University, where he majors in International Studies.
[1] See Herbert Broom, A Collection of Legal Maxims, Classified and Illustrated, 23 (London, A. Maxwell and Son 1845).
