•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Unfortunately, while the United States has established several legal avenues for civil litigation by private citizens of terror attacks against States that sponsor terrorism, a major stumbling block in terms of effectiveness rests in the reality that fellow democratic nations in the international community refuse to honor or domesticate the monetary judgments of American courts. Acknowledging that there are a plethora of political and legal obstacles associated with establishing a workable mechanism for fellow democracies to enforce the “terror” judgments of American courts, one reason that is often raised by critics is the strong objection to the matter of American punitive monetary awards, a concept that is rejected by most of the world‘s democratic legal systems. The answer to the aversion towards punitive damages can be remedied by substituting the more widespread acceptance of compensatory damages. Accordingly, any future effort to establish a legal framework to energize democracies to enforce American judgments should be predicated solely on compensation. Hopefully, as more nations come to understand the American concept of just compensation, the establishment of a viable international agreement will occur.

Share

COinS
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.