I'd be interested in any analysis published on this, if anyone has found some. I have not unfortunately.
"Under typical principles of fairness, JASTA is a just and necessary bill. Under basic norms of international law, however, it is a disaster. A primary justification for foreign sovereign immunity is comity: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions; in return, other countries don’t judge America’s. JASTA would jettison this principle for a different proposition: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions, unless they’re really, really bad. Yes, the bill specifically targets terrorist aid and enablement, but Obama and the State Department are nervous that other countries could retaliate by passing even broader waivers of sovereign immunity, allowing lawsuits against American service members, diplomats, and government officials in their own courts. (And it may go without saying that some of these courts—like, say, Saudi Arabia’s—do not comply with American standards of due process.)"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/_9_11_vict...
Meanwhile 28 of the 97 senators that voted for the veto override have now signed a letter warning of the unintended consequences of JASTA. The mind boggles.
http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d8eee900-5f...
I'm really looking for writing on concrete likely outcomes rather than conjecture, but that's hard to find. It seems the immediate result, given the law can only target domestic holdings, will be governments withdrawing as much as they can from US investments.
Good. I hope they bleed the US dry. Maybe we would act more like a civilized country if the world was able to exact meaningful consequences for our actions.