6.2 Case Briefs and Analyses: Defining Terrorism in International Law, computer science homework help

User Generated

gnevd1018

Computer Science

Description

Read

Anti terrorism legistlation bookAlmog v. Arab Bank is one of the cases consolidated under the name Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, claiming that Arab Bank is a financier of terrorist activity, brought on behalf of both U.S. and foreign citizens: survivors and family members of those killed or maimed by terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The case is brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act for its American-citizen plaintiffs and the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) which allows foreigners a federal court venue for cases alleging torts committed in violation of the law of nations, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, where those claims touch and concern the territory of the United States with sufficient force to permit jurisdiction. After its analysis of the facts and the law, the court found that the court could, and did, recognize a cause of action for the plaintiffs under the ATS.

In Saperstein v. The Palestinian Authority, on 22 December 2006, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a decision in a civil action brought under the ATS, which alleged that the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization were responsible for the murder of an Israeli citizen. The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the claim, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over the case and that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants' actions constituted a war crime and a violation of the Law of Nations for the purposes of the Alien Tort Statute. The court granted the defendants' motion for dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently established a violation of the Law of Nations to give the court subject-matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute.

Brief & Analyze

Brief each case with regard to the holding on the Alien Tort Statute in particular. After briefing the cases, discuss if the holdings are inconsistent with one another.

  • What best explains the difference in the outcomes of these two cases?
  • Is it simply that Almog asserts a claim of genocide, while Saperstein claims an act of terrorism?
  • Do the cases persuade you that genocide, but not terrorism, violates the law of nations?
  • Is there another basis for explaining the difference in outcomes?
    • If so, what is it?

Submit

Save your assignment using a naming convention that includes your first and last name and the activity number (or description). Do not add punctuation or special characters.

Refer to the Case Brief Rubric for detailed grading criteria.

Note: This assignment will automatically be checked through Turnitin,Links to an external site. a service that checks your work for improper citation or potential plagiarism by comparing it against a database of web pages, student papers, and articles from academic books and publications.

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Hello, kindly confirm the assignment. I have completed all parts of the assignment. Kindly confirm the paper and let me know if its okay

Running head: CASE BRIEFING

1

Almog v. Arab Bank case
Name
Instructor
Course
Date

CASE BRIEFING

2

The United States and foreign nations’ plaintiffs filed charges against the Arab Bank
claiming that the Bank is promoting the terrorist organizations by allocating funds to run their
terrorist missions (Simon, 2007). The plaintiff argued that the Arab Bank perpetrated the attacks
by the terrorist organizations that left a high number of people dead. According to the statement
made by the plaintiffs, the Arab Bank supported these organizations by maintaining their active
accounts, promoted the organizations’ charity program that raised funds for the terrorist
organizations and manipulating the payment information made only to the families of the victims
of the attack.
Issue
The question at issue, in this case, is whether the Arab Bank violated Article (1) 18
U.S.C. 2339A of the US Constitution by providing resources to the terrorist organizations and if
it should be held responsible for the violation of the law of the nations (Saul, 2008). Another
issue is whether the Arab Bank should be held responsible for failing to retain the possession of
control over the funds once it realized that the terrorist organizations had interest to the funds the
bank possessed or had control over?
Holding
The Supreme Court concluded that based on the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the
Arab Bank should be held liable for the law of nations. The reason is that any organized,
murderous attack or even a systematic suicide bombing is a violation of the law of the nations
(Simon, 2007). The Supreme Court recognizes the action under the (ATS) and for this reason,
the courts exercise their powers by imposing liability...


Anonymous
Just what I needed. Studypool is a lifesaver!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags