Achilles Heel of Non-State Actors
This isn't my theory, but the person who argued it just now (quite effectively) won't blog on it. So, here goes...
The soft spot of non-state actors (i.e. outlaws) is that they are outlaws, therefore private citizens, therefore without any state sovereignty to run behind should they be sued in tort. Hmm....
Further, the argument goes, the soft spot of certain undesirable states is that they employ private citizens to do their dirty work (i.e. state sponsored terrorism) in order to avoid international opprobrium, and so can be said to have waived their immunity. Double hmm....
If trading partners would tailor their tort laws to respect certain common law rights of action against private citizens, then, complaints a plenty, many a judgment, some whopping liens, and quite a few levies would be certain to follow.
I believe this strategy is being tried (in some sense) in this case, and I call it the "that's it, send in the lawyers" tactic.
Obviously there are some huge problems with the technique, especially in the feasability department. But there are some intriguing aspects to this. If this is truly a "Long War" the surest way to end it is to dry up the other side's capital assets. One time tested way of doing this is by running up their debt (afterall, they are doing it to us). Has anyone thought about what would happen to countries who are essentially debt free if suddenly they had to, for example, start running a 0.5% GDP deficit?
The soft spot of non-state actors (i.e. outlaws) is that they are outlaws, therefore private citizens, therefore without any state sovereignty to run behind should they be sued in tort. Hmm....
Further, the argument goes, the soft spot of certain undesirable states is that they employ private citizens to do their dirty work (i.e. state sponsored terrorism) in order to avoid international opprobrium, and so can be said to have waived their immunity. Double hmm....
If trading partners would tailor their tort laws to respect certain common law rights of action against private citizens, then, complaints a plenty, many a judgment, some whopping liens, and quite a few levies would be certain to follow.
I believe this strategy is being tried (in some sense) in this case, and I call it the "that's it, send in the lawyers" tactic.
Obviously there are some huge problems with the technique, especially in the feasability department. But there are some intriguing aspects to this. If this is truly a "Long War" the surest way to end it is to dry up the other side's capital assets. One time tested way of doing this is by running up their debt (afterall, they are doing it to us). Has anyone thought about what would happen to countries who are essentially debt free if suddenly they had to, for example, start running a 0.5% GDP deficit?
posted by Federalist X at 4:00 PM
|
<< Home