Right of Victims of Terrorism to Compensation Against the Principle of Jurisdictional Immunity of Foreign State
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Developments of the Jurisdictional Immunity of States. – 3. Exceptions to State Immunity in Terrorism Cases at the Domestic Level. – 3.1. U.S. Legislative Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity in Terrorism Cases. – 3.2. Canadian Legislative Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity in Terrorism Cases. – 3.3. Exceptions to State Immunity in Terrorism Cases in Other Jurisdictions. – 4. The Feasibility of Formulating an Exception to the Principle of State Immunity for the Benefit of Victims of Terrorism in Domestic Laws. – 4.1. Adopting a Legislative Anti-Terrorism Approach that Amends International Custom Related to the State Immunity. – 4.2. Creating Mechanisms to Enforce the Judgements Issued in Accordance with the Anti-Terrorism Exception in the Judicial Systems of Various Countries. – 5. Conclusions.
Background: Terrorist attacks in various parts of the world have resulted in thousands of victims, injuries and property losses. It is acknowledged that several of these attacks were likely sponsored or facilitated by state actors or committed by movements supported by governments.
In light of this, it has become necessary for the international community to adopt a multilateral and comprehensive international agreement to combat terrorism and mitigate its effects—particularly following the adoption of the Pact for the Future by the United Nations General Assembly at its seventy-ninth session. Action 23 of the Pact, in Paragraph (c), calls for “revitalising efforts towards the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism.”[1]
Methods: This study employed a deductive approach by examining and analysing various domestic judgements from the United States, the UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, Italy, Ukraine, Poland, Greece, China and India, as well as scholarly commentary by authors and jurists. It also involved reviewing relevant international agreements and exploring the possibility of integrating provisions from both foreign state immunity frameworks and international judicial cooperation agreements. The aim was to address the problem of protecting states from liability for supporting terrorism while proposing an effective legal formula to enable victims of terrorism to obtain compensation. The anti-terrorism exceptions incorporated into the state immunity acts of the United States and Canada were also examined.
Results and conclusions: The study concludes that state immunity is a well-established principle in both written and customary international law and has gained acceptance by various national judicial systems. However, both national and international jurisprudence and courts have shown hesitation to adopt an anti-terrorism exception, as such an adoption would entail a violation of the international rule of immunity and could lead to discriminatory treatment between states, despite the inherent fairness of holding terrorist-supporting states accountable.
[1] The Pact for the Future (adopted 22 September 2024 UNGA Res 79/1) para 44 <https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/79/1> accessed 23 May 2025.
Abstract
Background: Terrorist attacks in various parts of the world have resulted in thousands of victims, injuries and property losses. It is acknowledged that several of these attacks were likely sponsored or facilitated by state actors or committed by movements supported by governments.
In light of this, it has become necessary for the international community to adopt a multilateral and comprehensive international agreement to combat terrorism and mitigate its effects—particularly following the adoption of the Pact for the Future by the United Nations General Assembly at its seventy-ninth session. Action 23 of the Pact, in Paragraph (c), calls for “revitalising efforts towards the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism.”[1]
Methods: This study employed a deductive approach by examining and analysing various domestic judgements from the United States, the UK, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Canada, Italy, Ukraine, Poland, Greece, China and India, as well as scholarly commentary by authors and jurists. It also involved reviewing relevant international agreements and exploring the possibility of integrating provisions from both foreign state immunity frameworks and international judicial cooperation agreements. The aim was to address the problem of protecting states from liability for supporting terrorism while proposing an effective legal formula to enable victims of terrorism to obtain compensation. The anti-terrorism exceptions incorporated into the state immunity acts of the United States and Canada were also examined.
Results and conclusions: The study concludes that state immunity is a well-established principle in both written and customary international law and has gained acceptance by various national judicial systems. However, both national and international jurisprudence and courts have shown hesitation to adopt an anti-terrorism exception, as such an adoption would entail a violation of the international rule of immunity and could lead to discriminatory treatment between states, despite the inherent fairness of holding terrorist-supporting states accountable.
[1] The Pact for the Future (adopted 22 September 2024 UNGA Res 79/1) para 44 <https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/79/1> accessed 23 May 2025.
About Authors
Alaa Eddin Zolfakar
Master of Law, Faculty of Law, Damascus University, Syria
aladdin.zulfiqar@damascusuniversity.edu.sy
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3315-9178
Corresponding author, solely responsible for conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, resources, validation and writing – original draft.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The author declares that his opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Copyright: © 2025 Alaa Eddin Zolfakar. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. Badanova I, ‘Jurisdictional Immunities v Grave Crimes: Reflections on New Developments from Ukraine’ (EJIL:Talk!, 28 September 2022) <https://www.ejiltalk.org/jurisdictional-immunities-v-grave-crimes-reflections-on-new-developments-from-ukraine/> accessed 5 June 2025.
2. Bianchi A, ‘Immunity Versus Human Rights: The Pinochet Case’ (1999) 10(2) European Journal of International Law 237, doi:10.1093/ejil/10.2.237.
3. Bradley CA, ‘Universal Jurisdiction and US Law’ (2001) 2000 University of Chicago Legal Forum 323.
4. Bradley CA and Goldsmith JL, ‘Pinochet and International Human Rights Litigation’ (1999) 97(7) Michigan Law Review 2129.
5. Brownlie I, ‘Contemporary Problems Concerning Immunity of States: Preliminary Report’ (1987) 62(1) Annuaire de l’Inistitut de Droit International 16.
6. Cuniberti G, ‘Flatow v Iran – French Supreme Court Rules on Sovereign Immunity in Exequatur Proceedings’ (EAPIL - European Association of Private International Law, 21 September 2023)<https://eapil.org/2023/09/21/flatow-v-iran-french-supreme-court-rules-on-sovereign-immunity-in-exequatur-proceedings/> accessed 3 June 2025.
7. Dellapenna JW, Suing Foreign Governments and their Corporation (2 edn, Brill Nijhoff 2003).
8. Denza E, Diplomatic Law: Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (3rd edn, OUP 2008).
9. Dymond T and others, ‘China’s New Foreign State Immunity Law Targets Commercial Assets and Transactions’ (Debevoise & Plimpton, 16 January 2024) <https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2024/01/chinas-new-foreign-state-immunity-law-targets> accessed 4 June 2025.
10. Fox H, The Law of State Immunity (2nd edn, OUP 2008).
11. Jamshidi M, ‘Iran’s ICJ Case against Canada Tests the Terrorism Exception to Sovereign Immunity’ (Just Security, 24 July 2023) <https://www.justsecurity.org/87357/irans-icj-case-against-canada-tests-the-terrorism-exception-to-sovereign-immunity/> accessed 22 May 2025.
12. Kadelbach S, ‘State Immunity, Individual Compensation for Victims of Human Rights Crimes, and Future Prospects’ in Volpe V, Peters A and Battini S (eds), Remedies against Immunity?: Reconciling International and Domestic Law after the Italian Constitutional Court’s Sentenza 238/2014 (Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 297, Springer 2021) 143, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62304-6_7.
13. Lauterpacht H, ‘The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States’ (1951) 28 British Yearbook of International Law 220.
14. Nowosielski R, ‘State Immunity and the Right of Access to Court: The Natoniewski Case Before the Polish Courts’ (2010) 30 Polish Yearbook of International Law 263.
15. Popa Tache CE, ‘State Immunity, Between Past and Future’ (2023) 6(1) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 97, doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-6.1-a000121.
16. Sharma S, ‘Sovereign Immunity in India - Absolute or Qualified?’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 4 June 2014) <https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2014/06/04/sovereign-immunity-in-india-absolute-or-qualified/> accessed 4 June 2025.
17. Taychayev H and Issac G, ‘Is the Last Bastion of State Immunity Under Siege?: Some Reflections on the English High Court’s Decision in General Dynamics v Libya’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 September 2024) <https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/09/12/is-the-last-bastion-of-state-immunity-under-siege-some-reflections-on-the-english-high-courts-decision-in-general-dynamics-v-libya/> accessed 22 May 2025.
18. Trapp KN, ‘Holding States Responsible for Terrorism before the International Court of Justice’ (2012) 3 (2) Journal of International Dispute Settlement 279, doi:10.1093/jnlids/ids006.
19. Trooboff PD, Foreign State Immunity: Emerging Consensus on Principles (Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de droit international de La Haye (R de C) 200, Brill Nijhoff 1986) doi:10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789024736447_03.
20. Yang X, State Immunity in International Law (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law,CUP 2012).
21. Zaia R and Johnston D, ‘Canada’s Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act Needs a Rewrite‘ (Policy, 18 July 2024) <https://www.policymagazine.ca/canadas-justice-for-victims-of-terrorism-act-needs-a-rewrite/> accessed 28 May 2025.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Дослідницька стаття
ПРАВО ЖЕРТВ ТЕРОРИЗМУ НА КОМПЕНСАЦІЮ ЗГІДНО З ПРИНЦИПОМ ЮРИСДИКЦІЙНОГО ІМУНІТЕТУ ІНОЗЕМНОЇ ДЕРЖАВИ
Алаа Еддін Зольфакар
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. Терористичні атаки в різних частинах світу призвели до тисяч жертв, ушкоджень та втрат майна. Визнано, що деякі з цих атак, ймовірно, були здійснені за сприяння державних суб'єктів, або спонсорувалисяними, або були скоєні рухами, що підтримуються урядами.
З огляду на це, міжнародному співтовариству стало необхідним ухвалити багатосторонню та всеосяжнуміжнародну угоду щодо боротьби з тероризмом та пом'якшення його наслідків, особливо після прийняття Генеральною Асамблеєю Організації Об'єднаних Націй «Пакту заради майбутнього» на її сімдесят дев'ятій сесії. Дія 23 Пакту, у пункті (c), закликає до «активізації зусиль, спрямованих на укладення всеосяжної конвенції про міжнародний тероризм».
Методи. У цьому дослідженні було використано дедуктивний підхід, який охопив вивчення та аналіз різних національних рішень зі Сполучених Штатів, Великої Британії, Німеччини, Франції, Швейцарії, Австрії, Канади, Італії, України, Польщі, Греції, Китаю та Індії, а також наукових коментарів авторів та юристів. У статті також міститься огляд відповідних міжнародних угод та вивчення можливості інтеграції положень як із систем імунітету іноземних держав, так і з угод про міжнародне судове співробітництво. Метою роботи було вирішення проблеми захисту держав від відповідальності за підтримку тероризму, а також запропонувати ефективнуправову формулу, яка б дозволила жертвам тероризму отримати компенсацію. Також були розглянуті винятки щодо боротьби з тероризмом, зазначені у законах про імунітет держав Сполучених Штатів та Канади.
Результати та висновки. У дослідженні зроблено висновок, що державний імунітет є усталеним принципом як у писаному, так і у звичаєвому міжнародному праві і отримав визнання в різних національних судових системах. Однак як національна, так і міжнародна судова практика та суди демонструють нерішучість у прийнятті винятку щодо боротьби з тероризмом, оскільки таке рішення означало б порушення міжнародного принципу імунітету та могло б призвести до дискримінації між державами, незважаючи на справедливість притягнення до відповідальності держав, що підтримують терористів.
Таким чином, у цьому дослідженні пропонується набір правових положень, які слід додати до будь-якої багатосторонньої міжнародної угоди про боротьбу з тероризмом, а також до пов'язаних міжнародних угод.
Ключові слова: державний імунітет, імунітет державних посадовців, виняток щодо боротьби з тероризмом, право на компенсацію, віктимологія, угоди про правову допомогу, розвиток міжнародного права.
Publication history
-
Date of submission: 24 Apr 2025
Date of acceptance: 23 Jun 2025
Online First publication: 18 Jul 2025
Last Publication: 17 Aug 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer reports submitted in the first round: 3 reports
Number of revision rounds: 1 round
Technical tools were used in the editorial process:
Plagiarism checks - Turnitin from iThenticate https://www.turnitin.com/products/ithenticate/
Scholastica for Peer Review https://scholasticahq.com/law-reviews
How to cite it?
-
Zolfakar AE, ‘Right of Victims of Terrorism to Compensation Against the Principle ofJurisdictional Immunity of Foreign State’ (2025) 8(3) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 64-89
<https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.3-a000114>
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.3-a000114
Managing editor – Mag. Yuliia Hartman. English Editor – Julie Bold.
Ukrainian Language Editor – Liliia Hartman.
