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, authorunknown
-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 insurancepayout 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 websitehttp://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 abovearticles 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 toreview 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 isnot 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 thatstate 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 thecoverage 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, especiallydue 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...
Lire le document complet
Veuillez vous inscrire pour avoir accès au document.