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.
Addicott, Jeffrey F.
"American Punitive Damages vs. Compensatory Damages in Promoting Enforcement in Democratic Nations of Civil Judgements to Deter State-Sponsors of Terrorism,"
University of Massachusetts Law Review: Vol. 5:
1, Article 4.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.umassd.edu/umlr/vol5/iss1/4