This Comment examines the history, development, and application of the FSIA’s terrorist state attachment exception through the lens of Iran v. Elahi, as well as the larger problems and ramifications which ripple forth from the case. Part II, Sections A, B, and C present the background of the FSIA, the terrorist state exception, explaining the difference between 1610(a)(7) attachment of a foreign state’s property and 1610(b)(2) attachment of the property of an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state. Part III explores the intractable problem of recovery in terrorist state exception cases and the unfortunate foreign policy and constitutional ramifications of the statute as it stands. Part IV presents the background facts and procedural history of Iran v. Elahi. Part V explains the potential duty of the judiciary in applying scrupulous analysis to arrive at the “best” argument – the one contributing most fittingly to the development of the law. This Comment advocates that the common law will be better served if judges aspire to Dworkin’s Judge Hercules – a fitting ideal in the face of a “Herculean task.”
"A Herculean Task for Judge Hercules: Analytical Avoidance in Iran v. Elahi,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 41
, Article 4.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol41/iss1/4