IS THE ANTITERRORISM ACT AN APPROPRIATE OR EFFECTIVE MEANS OF FIGHTING STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM?
Assuming that the Antiterrorism Act is legal under customary international law, the question remains as to whether it is an effective or appropriate means of combating state-sponsored terrorism in the twenty-first century. The effectiveness of the Act largely depends upon the definition of effectiveness one employs and upon the aims of the Act itself. For example, if a primary goal of the Act is to compensate victims of state-sponsored terror and their families, then it seems to have had mixed effectiveness to date. Many successful plaintiffs have experienced years of difficulty collecting on the judgments rendered under the Act. However, to the extent that one goal of the Act is to publicly shame foreign state defendants that commit or sponsor acts of terror, and to draw media and public attention to the heinousness of their acts, the statute appears to be effective. The filing of each case under the Act, and the judgments entered, have led to national and international news stories.
