Is there any way this doesn't become a kangaroo court? My initial reaction is that no government will lend this legitimacy by appearing in court, and instead confiscate property in-kind while also pulling investments out of the US.
I'd be interested in any analysis published on this, if anyone has found some. I have not unfortunately.
Slate did a pretty decent overview of the implications:
"Under typical principles of fairness, JASTA is a just and necessary bill. Under basic norms of international law, however, it is a disaster. A primary justification for foreign sovereign immunity is comity: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions; in return, other countries don’t judge America’s. JASTA would jettison this principle for a different proposition: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions, unless they’re really, really bad. Yes, the bill specifically targets terrorist aid and enablement, but Obama and the State Department are nervous that other countries could retaliate by passing even broader waivers of sovereign immunity, allowing lawsuits against American service members, diplomats, and government officials in their own courts. (And it may go without saying that some of these courts—like, say, Saudi Arabia’s—do not comply with American standards of due process.)"
Meanwhile 28 of the 97 senators that voted for the veto override have now signed a letter warning of the unintended consequences of JASTA. The mind boggles.
Yes, that's about the deepest analysis I've been able to find beyond "gosh this is bad" (that much is evident and is not analysis), and given how much I like Amicus it's no surprise this is from Slate.
I'm really looking for writing on concrete likely outcomes rather than conjecture, but that's hard to find. It seems the immediate result, given the law can only target domestic holdings, will be governments withdrawing as much as they can from US investments.
I imagine, under possible threat of interest being withheld or redemption not occurring, Saudi Arabia will try to dump as many Treasury bonds as it can and look to eliminate the petro dollar... sounds like thrashing the US dollar could happen and soon (before any lawsuits go through).
My understanding is that this is a straight-up bad law. It provides no realistic benefits and may actually harm US security interests. This passed because no congressman wanted to appear to stand against 9/11 families during election season.
And it makes you wonder - 9/11 caused roughly 3.000 deaths. How many casualties have been made by US troops outside the US borders for "the good cause"? 10x times? 100x times more? Perhaps even a 1000 times more people died following the 9/11 attacks? And now you have given each and every one of those victims and their relatives a good reason to sue the US over their injuries...
>And now you have given each and every one of those victims and their relatives a good reason to sue the US over their injuries...
Good. I hope they bleed the US dry. Maybe we would act more like a civilized country if the world was able to exact meaningful consequences for our actions.
Forgive my ignorance, but how does an individual of one country sue another country's government? In what court does this hold up, and how can the country being sued be held to any decision made by such a court?
This law allows Saudi Arabia to be sued in American (presumably federal) courts. Enforcement is up to the terms of the law, but presumably can be taken on any assets that the US courts can get their hands on - probably anything held in the US, or at US banks.
There's not a great general answer, because normally the answer to your question is "they can't." Setting aside the fact that in this case the Saudi Arabian rulers are obviously horrible people who more or less deserve to have horrible things happen to them, the problem with allowing this sort of thing is that, from the outside, it looks like the United States unilaterally seizing property of a sovereign state, which is something that international law usually frowns upon. For that reason, foreign governments are normally given immunity in American courts, because upholding the system of statehood and encouraging other countries to recognize American sovereignty by reciprocity is seen as more important than whatever sense of justice would be gained.
Well I would argue that Argentina does set a precedent: a government decided to default on some of its debts, but some of its creditors (the so-called 'vulture funds') attacked this decision in US court. The US court ruled in favor of the creditors and allowed the seizing of Argentina's assets in several banks.
A UN resolution vote to prevent those practices (and thus reaffirming the kind of sovereignty you describe) was voted by a huge majority but rejected by the US.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but USA was already rejecting the notion of sovereignty when it comes to debt defaults, I think it is logical to reject it too when it comes to terrorism.
Good points, though those cases hinged on the argument that Argentina had, in its bonds, expressly waived sovereign immunity and made New York the forum for any legal action. Even so, the 2nd Circuit ruled against attempts to seize Argentinian Central Bank assets, setting a reasonably high bar for future attempts at recovery.
Personally, I'm with you -- I think the Argentina cases had somewhat delicate international ramifications (traditionally, the assumption has been that international investors take their chances, and that the market would punish any country that defaulted), but even so, JASTA really does upend international law in a new and troubling way.
I am really against the notion that waiving sovereignty is something that elected leaders are allowed to do. It is too easy to design a deal that will benefit one leader but open the country for pillaging under its successor.
> The vote was a blow to Obama as well as to Saudi Arabia, one of the United States' longest-standing allies in the Arab world, and some lawmakers who supported the override already plan to revisit the issue.
That doesn't changes the fact that for the most part the US doesn't have an alliance, it has interests it want to protect or secure.
That said for the most part pretty much every other country is no different, the only big difference is that because the US is de facto the biggest baddest mofo around it doesn't need to take anything from anyone which means often it's alliances are more "one sided" that what would traditionally be considered an alliance.
An example of suing a diplomat/state without foreign policy considerations: an Indian diplomat was sued for underpaying her domestic help. In response, India promptly sued spouses of American diplomats for tax evasion, illegal imports and fraud.
"Former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha called for the arrest of same-sex companions of US diplomats, citing the Supreme Court of India's recent upholding of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.[72][73] The Indian government asked US consular officers posted in India to return all identity cards.[7][6]
On December 17, 2013, Delhi Police removed security barricades on the road outside the US Embassy in New Delhi, citing need for improvement of traffic flow in that area.[74] India has demanded an unconditional apology from the US government[74] and asked the details of the salaries of all domestic help, gardeners and other staff employed by US consulates in India to check for inconsistency or frauds.[74] India moved to block perks such as alcohol and food imports at concessional rates, for embassy employees.[75] With new restrictions, U.S. Embassy Vehicles will not be immune to traffic violations, the restrictions also requires the embassy not to hold 'Commercial Activities' in its premises.[76] Indian income tax and immigration authorities are investigating allegations of work-permit, visa and income tax fraud at the American Embassy School.[77][78][79]"
As a non diplomat this seems like a good thing on both sides. A reasonable consideration for different cultures is one thing, full immunity is a terrible idea.
Sure, but where do you draw the line? And how to you prevent politicization? The tit-for-tat with India in the parent is a prime example of who blanket immunity is (probably) required. If a diplomat steps way out of line, you just escort them to the airport and ship them home.
My concern is it risks confusing things diplomats do vs. things countries do. If a diplomat runs does X and they are tried, well such is life. If diplomat does the same thing and leaves the country well such things can spark wars.
Sure, this might mean some diplomats get trumped up charges, but we don't actually need to have diplomats in other countries either. IMO, it’s a historical holdover before light speed communication was cheap.
>There is right and wrong, and that is more important than respect for other cultures.
Well you should examine more deeply your concept of "respect", "right" and "wrong".
America for instance punishes bigamy; when I am in America I respect the law. The vast majority of people in other parts of the world frown upon homosexuality and lesbianism. Don't try to bully a path to my accepting your point of view.
I am not making a moral judgement in my argument; what I am simply saying is that Western standards of morality are not the world's standards. Respect other people
These issues have been extensively discussed on other fora. No need to revisit them here. I come to HN for tech discussions.
The government of apartheid South Africa "frowned upon" black people. Should we have been more tolerant of apartheid, or do you think persecution of gays is a lesser moral offense?
It's hard to think of a finer example of imposing ones customs and beliefs on other people than outlawing their relationships. Or does this only apply at an international level in your opinion?
I have the same feeling about this law as I have about Donald Trump. Even though you know it's bad, there's a teensy-weensy part of you that likes the fact that it's sticking it to Saudi Arabia and the political class that's trying to defend Saudi Arabia even though it's pretty clear those shitbags are pretty much behind 911.
Also there's a part of me that thinks maybe it would be a good thing if there was more at stake when we blow up wedding parties with robotic death machines and the like.
Buying the president's defense is a lot like buying Hillary's defense of NAFTA. Maybe that plays well to policy wonks, but regular people aren't buying it and don't appreciate politicians trying to tell us white is black in the name of "American interests" or "national security."
Good that you mention the blowing up of wedding parties by US drones - because by the same law that allows Americans to sue the Saudi's, any victim can now sue the US for damages because of these (often quite uncontrolled) drone attacks.
And not only future drone attacks - also any victim of US armed forces since 2001, as the law goes back in time. So: you got hurt by an American in the past 15 years? Feel free to sue the US...
And why shouldn't families of innocent people killed by our robotic death machines be exempt from having a day in court? Oh yeah, because our government said we had good intentions when we blew up those children so it's all good. What really matter is that we didn't mean to kill those people, right?
The US Government staged coups, dictatorships, and supported warlords, druglords, torturers, slavers and tyrants all over the third world over the last 80 years or so, all under that "American interests" and "national security" bravado.
Maybe there's shitbags behind those shitbags, and it's shitbags all the way down.
Does anyone else think the only reason Obama did this is to help preserve US influence in how Saudi Arabia prosecutes the Yemen war/disaster (with US weapons and intelligence)?
I could live with the idea that this law subscribes to a more universalist view of politics and morale ; one in which individuals strive to share their values and their new ideas with their neighbours. Such a concept was always risky, but it also underlines the fundamental altruist nature of mankind.
However, when we look at the context of this decision, it is doubtful that such is the case. On the opposite, this decision seems to be the result of a particular strain of exceptionalism, where one nation should be able to judge others' deeds, while at the same time claiming immunity for its own misdemeanours.
This duality of standards, which would have us accept that foreign nations can be judged when no introspection is possible, is very dangerous, because it starves empathy and feeds nationalism ; it enables national outrage at actions which are merely reciprocal. This is the kind of group mentality that made the first world war happen.
44 comments
[ 6.4 ms ] story [ 86.9 ms ] threadI'd be interested in any analysis published on this, if anyone has found some. I have not unfortunately.
"Under typical principles of fairness, JASTA is a just and necessary bill. Under basic norms of international law, however, it is a disaster. A primary justification for foreign sovereign immunity is comity: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions; in return, other countries don’t judge America’s. JASTA would jettison this principle for a different proposition: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions, unless they’re really, really bad. Yes, the bill specifically targets terrorist aid and enablement, but Obama and the State Department are nervous that other countries could retaliate by passing even broader waivers of sovereign immunity, allowing lawsuits against American service members, diplomats, and government officials in their own courts. (And it may go without saying that some of these courts—like, say, Saudi Arabia’s—do not comply with American standards of due process.)"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/_9_11_vict...
Meanwhile 28 of the 97 senators that voted for the veto override have now signed a letter warning of the unintended consequences of JASTA. The mind boggles.
http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d8eee900-5f...
I'm really looking for writing on concrete likely outcomes rather than conjecture, but that's hard to find. It seems the immediate result, given the law can only target domestic holdings, will be governments withdrawing as much as they can from US investments.
Good. I hope they bleed the US dry. Maybe we would act more like a civilized country if the world was able to exact meaningful consequences for our actions.
There's not a great general answer, because normally the answer to your question is "they can't." Setting aside the fact that in this case the Saudi Arabian rulers are obviously horrible people who more or less deserve to have horrible things happen to them, the problem with allowing this sort of thing is that, from the outside, it looks like the United States unilaterally seizing property of a sovereign state, which is something that international law usually frowns upon. For that reason, foreign governments are normally given immunity in American courts, because upholding the system of statehood and encouraging other countries to recognize American sovereignty by reciprocity is seen as more important than whatever sense of justice would be gained.
A UN resolution vote to prevent those practices (and thus reaffirming the kind of sovereignty you describe) was voted by a huge majority but rejected by the US.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but USA was already rejecting the notion of sovereignty when it comes to debt defaults, I think it is logical to reject it too when it comes to terrorism.
Personally, I'm with you -- I think the Argentina cases had somewhat delicate international ramifications (traditionally, the assumption has been that international investors take their chances, and that the market would punish any country that defaulted), but even so, JASTA really does upend international law in a new and troubling way.
It's a type of law that makes lawyers salivate.
US doesn't have "allies", only interests.
NATO article 5.
"Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies."
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
That said for the most part pretty much every other country is no different, the only big difference is that because the US is de facto the biggest baddest mofo around it doesn't need to take anything from anyone which means often it's alliances are more "one sided" that what would traditionally be considered an alliance.
Quoting from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade_incident
"Former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha called for the arrest of same-sex companions of US diplomats, citing the Supreme Court of India's recent upholding of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.[72][73] The Indian government asked US consular officers posted in India to return all identity cards.[7][6]
On December 17, 2013, Delhi Police removed security barricades on the road outside the US Embassy in New Delhi, citing need for improvement of traffic flow in that area.[74] India has demanded an unconditional apology from the US government[74] and asked the details of the salaries of all domestic help, gardeners and other staff employed by US consulates in India to check for inconsistency or frauds.[74] India moved to block perks such as alcohol and food imports at concessional rates, for embassy employees.[75] With new restrictions, U.S. Embassy Vehicles will not be immune to traffic violations, the restrictions also requires the embassy not to hold 'Commercial Activities' in its premises.[76] Indian income tax and immigration authorities are investigating allegations of work-permit, visa and income tax fraud at the American Embassy School.[77][78][79]"
Sure, this might mean some diplomats get trumped up charges, but we don't actually need to have diplomats in other countries either. IMO, it’s a historical holdover before light speed communication was cheap.
They have their laws. You have yours; please dont try to impose your customs and beliefs on other people.
Well you should examine more deeply your concept of "respect", "right" and "wrong".
America for instance punishes bigamy; when I am in America I respect the law. The vast majority of people in other parts of the world frown upon homosexuality and lesbianism. Don't try to bully a path to my accepting your point of view. I am not making a moral judgement in my argument; what I am simply saying is that Western standards of morality are not the world's standards. Respect other people
These issues have been extensively discussed on other fora. No need to revisit them here. I come to HN for tech discussions.
I do believe in respecting the customs of other cultures - until they are oppressive and punish people for absolutely no good reason.
How far does that go - was it wrong to oppose apartheid in South Africa or slavery in the US?
It seems quite antiquated, but the US had similar laws as late as 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Stat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Matlovich
Also there's a part of me that thinks maybe it would be a good thing if there was more at stake when we blow up wedding parties with robotic death machines and the like.
Buying the president's defense is a lot like buying Hillary's defense of NAFTA. Maybe that plays well to policy wonks, but regular people aren't buying it and don't appreciate politicians trying to tell us white is black in the name of "American interests" or "national security."
And not only future drone attacks - also any victim of US armed forces since 2001, as the law goes back in time. So: you got hurt by an American in the past 15 years? Feel free to sue the US...
Discovering who [we] is is an exercise left to the reader
However, when we look at the context of this decision, it is doubtful that such is the case. On the opposite, this decision seems to be the result of a particular strain of exceptionalism, where one nation should be able to judge others' deeds, while at the same time claiming immunity for its own misdemeanours.
This duality of standards, which would have us accept that foreign nations can be judged when no introspection is possible, is very dangerous, because it starves empathy and feeds nationalism ; it enables national outrage at actions which are merely reciprocal. This is the kind of group mentality that made the first world war happen.