Jasta: evaluating civil procedure challenges in holding foreign entities accountable for terrorism sponsorship

Abstract

Terrorism remains a pervasive global challenge, inflicting profound suffering and loss of life across nations. In response, the United States enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a significant legislative measure designed to empower victims of terrorism to pursue legal accountability against foreign entities implicated in terrorist activities. This study critically examines JASTA through the lens of civil procedure to assess its efficacy in delivering remedies to victims and overcoming the complexities of holding foreign actors accountable. The analysis focuses on the pre-litigation phase of civil procedure, specifically exploring two critical components: the parties to the suit and the cause of action. These elements are evaluated to identify potential vulnerabilities that could undermine JASTA’s objectives when applied to foreign entities, as outlined in the act. Key preliminary considerations for initiating a civil lawsuit under JASTA are thoroughly investigated to highlight the act’s strengths and limitations in facilitating justice for victims. Employing a qualitative research approach, this study relies primarily on doctrinal legal research, drawing from authoritative sources such as legal texts, case law, and scholarly discussions on JASTA and procedural law. By dissecting JASTA’s framework, the research uncovers challenges in establishing causation, navigating sovereign immunity, and securing enforceable remedies, which often hinder plaintiffs’ ability to achieve meaningful relief. The findings offer valuable insights for refining JASTA and strengthening its application, enabling U.S. citizens affected by terrorism to effectively pursue claims against foreign states or entities complicit in their suffering. Furthermore, the study’s implications extend internationally, providing a foundation for other nations grappling with terrorism-related litigation to develop robust legal frameworks. By addressing gaps in JASTA’s civil procedure mechanisms, this research advocates for legislative improvements to enhance access to justice for victims globally. The analysis also underscores the need for future research to explore evolving challenges in terrorism litigation, particularly in the context of emerging threats like cyberterrorism, to ensure that legal systems remain responsive to the dynamic nature of global terrorism. Ultimately, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of JASTA’s role in balancing victim redress with the complexities of international legal accountability.