Compensations and costs as a theme regarding explosive violence
Market Watch reports:
85 Victims of Hizbollah Terrorist Rocket Attacks File Unprecedented Civil Suit Against American Express Bank in New York Court – First American Correspondent Bank to be Sued for Aiding Terrorist Organization Facing $650 Million in Damages
This report raises issues relating to compensation for the outcomes of explosive violence. Although clearly situated within the politicised discourse on terrorism and the status of the perpetrators, this case is potentially part of a broader theme regarding the potential down-stream costs of explosive violence for any formalised actor. In addition to claims for persons unjustly injured or killed, or for economic losses, other potential costs relate to the clearance of unexploded ordnance and potential legal liabilities related to the risks of such munitions.
This theme regarding the wider costs of explosive violence is also related to the ‘domestic’ vs. ‘foreign’ framing used in previous posts. For relatively wealthy western countries, this relationship draws upon differential orientations to law and risk – and especially the slow encroachment of domestic jurisdiction over foreign operations.
The American Express Bank case noted above sees the legal system being used against the financial sector, where the financial sector provides services that bridge between these ‘domestic’ and the ‘foreign’ realms.