CONCLUSION

The principle of sovereign immunity has been part of traditional

domains of international law for over 200 years. The norm is based
on the idea that equal sovereigns should not use their courts to sit
in judgment of one another. The United States benefits greatly
from this arrangement because of all of its activities abroad.
JASTA effectively curtails this principle in regards to Saudi Arabia, in
direct conflict with established international practice. In a statement
to the State Department, The European Union expressed that JASTA
has detracted from the principle of sovereign immunity and
expressed their concern that it would lead to reciprocal action by
other states, damaging the rule and what it stands for.
Other nations, notably Saudi Arabia, but also joined by Russia, and
France (apart from the critique of the European Union) have already
begun to demonstrate their outrage against the bill, calling it a
blunt violation of international law.
 This is not the first time that the United States has treaded around the
concept of sovereign immunity as it pertains to terrorism.
The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, President Obamas Executive
Order No. 13.599, and the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights
Act of 2012 together have also caused outrage from the international
community. Such broad curtailing of international law in the name of
terrorism will most likely bring more significant diplomatic consequences.
The U.S. Congress has been critiqued by national and international
sources not only for abandoning this long respected tenant of
international law, but also for doing it carelessly without fully
contemplating what it could mean for the United States in light of its
activities in foreign states.
President Obama and other critics of the bill were quick to point out
these issues to the legislature. However, Congress swiftly overrode the
veto in order to pack up their bags and get ready for elections. This
resulted in their failure to pause and fully comprehend the implications
this bill has in the international sphere and its potential for backlash.
 Because the Presidents veto was overwhelmingly overridden, this bill
will become law, limiting sovereign immunity for Saudi Arabia and
carrying the potential to cast a broader net in the future.
Though some critics have sounded off alarming predictions of just
what Saudi Arabia will do in retaliation, it is most likely that apart
from the strong condemnation of JASTA, nothing more will be done.
The concern is its pile on effect to already shaky US-Saudi relations.
The bigger issue is what other nations will do in response, potentially
changing their own sovereign immunity laws in order to allow suits
against the United States for interventions in their respective
countries.
The world will not necessarily turn into a lawsuit jungle, but other
nations may certainly feel that JASTA allows them to seek justice
against wrongs caused by US actions as well. For now, all that is left is
to wait and see what aftermath this defiance of international law will
bring.