[rayiner]

The vice article is way better than all the other coverage.

As a bit of additional background context, the historical rule has been that foreign nations cannot be sued in each others' courts. In the US, that rule is subject to the whim of Congress, and Congress is allowed to create exceptions.

[ArkyBeagle]

This is also true as a practical matter - there's no real mechanism for forcing officials of another country to provide information. Congress cannot change this.

People in Saudi who are dissidents end up jailed. This is particularly acute about the Shia/Sunni axis.

The Saudis may well have a legitimate complaint here - the result would possibly be a historical fiction made up for political gain.

Interestingly, I would think that Congress commissioning a rigorous investigative nonfiction film - of the sort Errol Morris does - would be a better solution. "Frontline" already has a start on the subject. The hard part would be defending the design of that from accusations of it being propaganda.

[Maarten88]

There is the International Court of Justice, but US has never recognized its jurisdiction.

[studentrob]

> the historical rule has been that foreign nations cannot be sued in each others' courts

You mean, most countries abide by this?

Why is that? Is it possible this type of behavior is viewed as a gateway to sanctions at best, or stifled communications and war at worst?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the proposed law. I'm just curious what the consequences might be when one developed country (Saudi Arabia) inevitably rebuffs another country's (USA's) judgement of it. I mean, that's point of separate countries right? Sovereignty.

[rayiner]

It's a separation of powers idea, even in countries that don't have a formal separation of powers like in the U.S. In nearly every country, the President (or Prime Minister or King) is invested with foreign policy powers, so that the country can speak with one voice in international affairs. That power is undermined by domestic courts passing judgment on the actions of foreign sovereigns.

Nations don't have to respect each other's court judgments. On the other hand, domestic courts can decide the disposition of assets within their jurisdiction. For a country like Saudi Arabia, that has a ton of U.S. assets, a U.S. court judgment can be a big risk even if it has no intention of recognizing the validity of that judgment.

[rtpg]

The idea is that if citizens could sue foreign countries, then those countries' assets in US jurisdiction could be seized.

In the case of SA, there are the treasury bonds that they are talking about selling. Considering the all-encompasing dollar-based banking system, the US in particular would be very skilled at getting foreign nation assets in rulings.

I think the reasoning behind it historically is about maintaining proper diplomatic relations. The executive is in charge of foreign relations, not the judicial system. There's probably some arguments about standing too, and jurisdiction. But I think it's mainly the diplomatic angle.

[studentrob]

> The idea is that if citizens could sue foreign countries, then those countries' assets in US jurisdiction could be seized.

Oh I see. So SA would want to sell off US assets before doors open in the US to seize those assets via lawsuits. That makes sense.

I should've read the whole article before commenting. Thanks!!

By the way your last paragraph is indented like a code block and kind of hard to read because of the side scrolling...

[danmaz74]

Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth funds hold many billions (I would guess hundreds of billions) dollars worth of US assets that US courts could seize for damage compensations.

[kiiski]

"$750 billion in treasury securities and other assets" according to the article.