TERRORISM AMENDMENT (1976) TO THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

• NCJ Number: 48612
• Journal: JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ECONOMICS Volume: 2 Issue: 2 Dated: (1977) Pages: 223-236
• Author(s): R B LILLICH; T E CARBONNEAU
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 14 pages
• Corporate Author: George Washington University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE AMENDMENT, OPPOSITION TO IT, AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS ARE ASSESSED.

Abstract

IN 1976, CONGRESS ENACTED AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNED INTO LAW SECTION 620A OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE 'TERRORISM AMENDMENT'), WHICH IN EFFECT CODIFIES THE POLICY EXPRESSED IN A 1972 SENATE RESOLUTION. ESSENTIALLY, THE TERRORISM AMENDMENT ALLOWS THE PRESIDENT, FOR NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS OR OTHERWISE, TO TERMINATE ALL ASSISTANCE TO ANY GOVERNMENT WHICH AIDS OR ABETS (E.G. BY GRANTING SANCTUARY) ANYONE WHO HAS COMMITTED AN ACT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. THE SANCTION EXTENDS FOR 1 YEAR FROM THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT, AND IT IS CUMULATIVE. OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS: (1) STATES WHICH HAD GRANTED SANCTUARY TO TERRORISTS IN THE PAST DID NOT RECEIVE U.S. AID AND WERE THUS IMMUNE FROM THE AMENDMENT'S THRUST; (2) THE AMENDMENT PLACES UNDUE EMPHASIS UPON A SINGLE FACTOR IN STATE-TO-STATE RELATIONS; AND (3) THE LACK OF ANY CLEAR DEFINITION OF 'INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM' GIVES THE PRESIDENT THE OPTION TO DEFINE IT AS HE CHOOSES. THE OBJECTION AS TO THE LACK OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE AMENDMENT WITH REFERENCE TO NATIONS THAT DO NOT RECEIVE U.S. AID IS REFUTED BY THE ARGUMENT THAT THE AMENDMENT, MORE THAN INTENDING TO HALT A STATE'S PROTECTION OF TERRORISTS, AIMS AT STATING U.S. OPPOSITION TO INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND SETTING A NORM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDING TERRORISM. IN REACTION TO THE SECOND ARGUMENT THAT THE AMENDMENT UNDULY RESTRICTS STATE-TO-STATE RELATIONS WHOSE COMPLEXITY REQUIRES FLEXIBILITY, IT IS MAINTAINED THAT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM IS OF SUCH A SERIOUS NATURE THAT IT DESERVES TOP PRIORITY IN DETERMINING OUR POSTURE TOWARD OTHER NATIONS, REGARDLESS OF ANY CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN NATIONAL SECURITY. IN COUNTERING THE THIRD ARUGMENT THAT 'INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM' IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEFINED IN THE AMENDMENT, IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT COMMON PERCEPTION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A TERRORIST ACT, SUCH THAT FURTHER DEFINITION IS NOT REQUIRED. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (RCB)