On money damages and human life: actually there is rational process. In exchange for waiving rights to litigate their claims arising from the 9/11 terrorist hijackings and crashes, the victims' families presented their claims to a unique type of neutral arbiter under a "special claims process" (the exact nomenclature might be slightly different). This also was the process for claims resulting from the oil-drilling rig disaster, Deepwater Horizon.
The process isn't presented as exact. But in these mass torts - highly notorious instances of liabilities - the work of the designated claims adjudicator has been - unless I've missed some big news - widely accepted. The work done by Ken Feinberg in both matters (and others) didn't purport either to be precise or to bleed corporate defendants into oblivion.
So I'll disagree that the claims at issue in the case in Chicago are mere exercises in excess, or whatever other derision sought to be given to them.
But as to the culpability of the national government in that country, rather than Boeing, perhaps the company should have retained a person with both the insight and knowledge you advocate, in its p.r., lobbying, expert witness cadre, or even at counsel table. Candidly I'm not sure you could find any international civil aviation litigation attorneys who - outside of advocating for a client or for their own practices - would agree that a corrupt government, as you assert, replaces as the legally responsible party the grossly negligent manufacturer. Perhaps at some upcoming professional conference someplace, some worthy on the big-ticket air crash litigation circuit will advocate your corrupt Ethiopian government theory of the case, .... or even mention this thread in the "hallway networking."
As to AA 191, see please the NTSB report (1979), pp. 22-25, describing results of simulator tests.