Here are the articles used for the synthesis :

-The risk that nobody wants, American law makers are at odds over terrorist insurance, on November the 15th of 2001, from The Economist, author unknown

-Terrorism insurance, Is a federal backstop for terrorist insurance necessary?, on September the 5th of 2002, from The Economist, author unknown

-Insurance, A World Trade Centre insurance payout depends on legal niceties, on May the 16th of 2002, from The Economist, author unknown

-9/11, terrorism adversely affects domestic economy, on August the 19th of 2005, from the website http://media.www.thetriangle.org, by Michael Kheifetz -The impact of terrorism on Foreign Direct Investment, on February of 2006, from the website http://www.irmi.com, by Daniel Wagner

The above articles are related to the impact of terrorism on business and law. Indeed, economic sectors have been affected like insurance so that insurers have decided to amend their policies and governments to review legislation to cover such a risk.
To which extent government intervention is necessary after a terrorist act and why can’t we assert that terrorism is not always a barrier to trade?
First of all, I will highlight the need for state intervention, particularly in the field of law, to solve the problems faced by insurers then, I will underline that state intervention is not always necessary and that terrorism does not always affect business.

In response to the attacks of the 11th of September, the insurance industry reduced or refused the coverage of terrorism risk by excluding it from their property and casualty insurance.
The main reason why they refused to cover it, is the difficulty for insurers to price terrorism risks, especially due to the problem of “occurrence”, underlined in the article Insurance, A World Trade Centre insurance payout depends on legal niceties. Indeed, this problem of “occurrence” caused legal wrangling