Civil Litigation against Terrorists and Terrorist States

Abstract

The aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have seen a range of policy responses to deterring future attacks and compensating victims of terrorism. The U.S. military is engaged in a multifront war combating terrorists overseas, government agencies are pursuing various domestic policies to forestall another attack, and congress, the president, and federal courts are likewise bound together in an ongoing dialogue about expedient, legal, and constitutional approaches to the War on Terror. One seemingly unlikely policy response has been the use of civil litigation to hold terrorists and states that sponsor terrorism accountable. Relying on tort law principles such as wrongful death, personal injury, and negligence, from both American and international law, victims of terrorism have turned to the American federal court system to establish that those linked with terrorism, from the individuals who carry out terrorist acts, to the foreign states that financially sponsor or otherwise facilitate terrorism, are financially liable for their injurious activities. Indeed, over 95 tort cases have arisen out of the September 11 attacks, and slightly over half have been settled.¹ The vast majority of cases are typical wrongful death lawsuits that target American corporations for not taking steps to protect the 9/11 victims from a terrorist attack. However, a small number of cases name as defendants foreign governments accused of sponsoring terrorist acts, terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, and international banks and other companies that may have helped finance the acts of terrorist groups.