1. What you'll learn (objectives)
In this tutorial you will learn, in practical terms, how U.S. legal doctrine has shifted to expand jurisdiction when harm is felt in the United States and to create liability for secondary actors through aiding-and-abetting theories. You will learn how to:
- Assess whether sovereign immunity blocks a claim or whether exceptions (including post-JASTA changes) permit suit against a foreign state. Build or defend aiding-and-abetting allegations against non-state and corporate actors who provided substantial assistance or intent. Identify and document the factual nexus that makes harm “felt in the U.S.” for jurisdictional purposes. Take immediate protective steps for U.S. personnel (diplomats, soldiers, contractors) and anticipate retaliation risks. Plan a litigation and risk-mitigation strategy that balances accountability with the realities of reciprocity and enforcement.
2. Prerequisites and preparation
Before you start applying these doctrines you need the right background, documentation, and institutional contacts.
- Legal baseline: Understand the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), basic jurisdictional principles, and the elements of civil aiding-and-abetting (substantial assistance + intent/knowledge depending on the cause of action). Factual packet: Compile a timeline, witness list, communications (emails, bank transfers, contracts), travel or employment records, geolocation data, and any official incident reports. Security & diplomatic contacts: Identify points of contact at the Department of State, regional security officers, embassy security, and U.S. military legal counsel where relevant. Forensic and financial support: Arrange access to forensic accountants, open-source investigators, and secure evidence storage. Communications strategy: Prepare a calibrated messaging plan: who will be notified internally, what will be made public, and how to coordinate with government partners if retaliation risks rise.
3. Step-by-step instructions
Follow these steps in order. Each step contains practical actions you can take immediately and evidence you should collect.
Step 1 — Map the fact pattern (0–48 hours)
List the direct victims and where they are located. If any are U.S. nationals or the incident caused substantial harm in the U.S., note that as a jurisdictional hook. Identify every actor involved: state bodies, state-sponsored proxies, private companies, banks, logistics providers, and individuals. Preserve all material evidence immediately. Make forensic copies of digital files and back up custody logs. Rapid preservation reduces later disputes about spoliation.Step 2 — Quick jurisdictional triage (48–96 hours)
Ask: Is the defendant a foreign state or instrumentality? If yes, FSIA applies and sovereign immunity is presumptive unless an exception fits. If not a state, consider whether aiding-and-abetting claims against secondary actors can be anchored to U.S. jurisdiction because the harm was felt in the U.S. Collect facts showing the nexus: U.S.-based victims, U.S. financial systems used, U.S. operations impacted, or contracts performed in the U.S. Document how the harm was “felt” in the U.S.—lost wages, damaged property, terror impacts on U.S. soil, disrupted commerce, or emotional/psychological effects on U.S.-based family members. Courts look for a concrete domestic connection.Step 3 — Test sovereign-immunity exceptions (days 3–10)
Evaluate FSIA exceptions: commercial-activity, expropriation, and—as modified by JASTA—terrorism-related exceptions. Collect evidence tying the alleged conduct to these exceptions (e.g., contracts showing commercial activity in the U.S.; evidence that a violent act was sponsored by a foreign state). If JASTA-style allegations are relevant, gather proof of state involvement in planning or supporting terrorism, and show the U.S. nexus. Prepare multiple pleadings in draft form: one that invokes an FSIA exception and an alternative pleading that proceeds under ordinary personal-jurisdiction theories if the defendant is not a state.Step 4 — Build or defend aiding-and-abetting claims (weeks 1–6)
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/414135 For plaintiffs: assemble documentary proof of substantial assistance—financial transfers, procurement contracts, logistics support, communications endorsing the underlying wrongdoing. Show that assistance was not merely neutral or benign. Prove mens rea: compile evidence that the secondary actor knew their actions would facilitate the primary wrongdoer or acted with reckless disregard. Emails, compliance reports, and internal memos are crucial. For defendants: systematically attack causation and scienter. Show lack of knowledge, legitimate commercial purpose, or that alleged assistance was too attenuated to meet the “substantial assistance” threshold.Step 5 — Filing strategy and immediate protective orders (weeks 2–8)
Choose forum strategically: venue convenience, likelihood of sympathetic juries, and enforceability of judgments matter. Consider federal courts where FSIA and JASTA are litigated. Seek preservation orders, asset restraints, or preliminary injunctions when necessary to prevent dissipation of assets or evidence. Coordinate with U.S. government partners if retaliation risks exist. Notify State Department legal and security offices before high-profile filings.Step 6 — Operational security and retaliation planning (ongoing)
Perform a threat assessment for any U.S. personnel related to the matter: diplomats, soldiers, contractors, and their families. Use both open-source and classified inputs when available. Implement immediate security steps: alter travel plans, increase embassy security, and limit public disclosures that identify individual personnel or sensitive locations. If retaliation occurs, work with State and DoD to prioritize evacuation, medical assistance, and criminal investigations, and to consider diplomatic responses.4. Common pitfalls to avoid
- Overrelying on JASTA as a silver bullet. JASTA opens avenues but does not guarantee success; courts still require clear state involvement and causation. Poor nexus documentation. Vague claims that an attack was “felt in the U.S.” without quantifiable harm or a clear link will be dismissed or ignored. Ignoring sovereign immunity thresholds. Failure to test FSIA exceptions early leads to wasted filing fees and lost time. Underestimating evidentiary burdens for aiding-and-abetting. Mere association or routine commercial activity rarely suffices; courts demand substantive proof of assistance and knowledge. Neglecting retaliation planning. Prosecution or civil suits against foreign states or their proxies can increase risk to personnel—discounting that risk is dangerous and avoidable.
5. Advanced tips and variations
These intermediate and advanced tactics are for teams that have mastered the basics and want to gain an edge.
- Use parallel tools: Combine civil suits with requests for targeted sanctions, criminal referrals, and public naming of actors to increase pressure and alternatives to collect on judgments. Financial forensics: Follow the money into correspondent banks and U.S. financial infrastructure—establishing U.S. contacts or transfers can strengthen jurisdiction and aiding-and-abetting claims. Strategic disclosures: Use carefully timed leaks or public reports to encourage settlements while limiting operational security risks. Coordinate communications with government security teams. Multi-jurisdictional litigation: File suits in multiple countries to create secondary pressure—while anticipating forum disputes and contradictory judgments. Protective pleadings: Draft pleadings that present alternative theories (state liability under FSIA, non-state aiding-and-abetting, negligent supervision) so dismissal on one theory doesn’t end the case.
Quick Win (Immediate value you can take now)
Within 24–48 hours, complete this two-part checklist to get traction:
Document the nexus: Compile the three strongest facts that connect the harm to the U.S. (e.g., U.S. victims, U.S.-based financial transfers, attack on U.S. facility). Preserve and lock down evidence: Use encrypted backups, a documented chain of custody, and immediate litigation hold notices to all relevant custodians.These two steps dramatically improve jurisdictional and causation arguments and reduce the risk of spoliation challenges later.
6. Troubleshooting guide
Common problems and direct fixes.
Problem: Court dismisses on sovereign immunity grounds
Fix:
- Re-examine the complaint for missing factual allegations tying the conduct to an FSIA exception. Amend promptly with concrete proof (contracts, government directives). Seek discovery on the immunity issue if the court allows limited jurisdictional discovery; alternatively, gather third-party evidence to support an appeal.
Problem: Aiding-and-abetting clause fails because assistance seems ordinary
Fix:
- Focus on the qualitative nature of assistance—timing, volume, intent, and whether the assistance made a materially different outcome possible. Introduce corporate documents or witness testimony that show the defendant ignored red flags or violated internal compliance rules, demonstrating knowledge or recklessness.
Problem: Retaliation or threats against U.S. personnel
Fix:
- Immediately coordinate with embassy security, State Department protective services, and DoD intelligence. Prioritize evacuation and safety above litigation goals. Pause public litigation tactics that increase exposure and shift to confidential discovery and sealed filings where possible.
Problem: Judgment cannot be enforced overseas
Fix:
- Identify assets within U.S. jurisdiction or in jurisdictions that respect U.S. judgments. Use asset-tracing specialists early in the case. Pursue settlement strategies that include escrowed funds, or negotiate reciprocity arrangements with allied jurisdictions.
Contrarian viewpoints (what critics say and how to respond)
Understanding the critiques helps craft balanced strategies.
- Critique: Expanded U.S. jurisdiction is a form of legal imperialism. Response: While the risk exists, accountability mechanisms can be narrowly tailored—requiring strong domestic nexus and rigorous evidence avoids overreach. Critique: Aiding-and-abetting liability chills legitimate commerce and humanitarian operations. Response: Well-drafted pleadings and careful judicial thresholds (substantial assistance + scienter) protect innocuous actors while targeting culpable conduct. Critique: Suits against foreign states invite retaliation and hurt diplomacy. Response: Risk mitigation is part of responsible litigation. Coordinate with governmental agencies, use confidential procedures where necessary, and weigh non-litigation remedies when risks to personnel are high.
Final takeaway: The law has evolved to provide meaningful routes for accountability—especially where harm touches the U.S. and where secondary actors materially enable wrongdoing. But success depends on disciplined fact-cataloging, a clear nexus to U.S. interests, proof of substantial assistance and mens rea, and proactive planning for retaliation and enforcement hurdles. Practitioners who combine careful legal pleading, rigorous evidence preservation, and close coordination with security and diplomatic partners will obtain the best balance between accountability and safety.
