No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
page 72 note 1 In Webster's New International Dictionary (1932), is found the following definition of requisition:
. . . Specif, a (International Law) A formal demand made by one state or government upon another for the surrender of a fugitive from justice.
page 72 note 2 British Extradition Act of 1870, §7, Appendix VI, No. 8; Field's International Code (1876), Art. 211, Appendix IV, No. 2; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, ch. 9; Biron & Chalmers, Extradition (1903), pp. 19, 34 and 36; Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 77; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §324, p. 586; Treaty between United States and Great Britain of 1932, Art. 9, Appendix V, No. 1. Other terms used in English are " demand ", see Pan American Convention of 1902, Appendix III, No. 3, Central American Conventions of 1923 and 1934, Appendix III, No. 7; Bustamante Code of 1928, Appendix III, No. 5; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6; "formal request", see Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3; "application for surrender of", see Treaty between United States and Venezuela of 1922, Appendix I, No. 13.
page 72 note 3 Billot, TraiU de VExtradition (1874), pp. 163, 164.
page 72 note 4 Ibid., pp. 137, 139; Travers, L'Entr'aide Ripressive Internationale (1928), pp. 189, 192, 194; French Extradition Law of 1927, Arts. 9 and 10, Appendix VI, No. 6.
page 72 note 5 Hungary-Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 61; Italy-Venezuela, Appendix I, No. 67; Brazil-Italy, Appendix I, No. 87.
page 72 note 6 International Labor Office, Studies and Reports, Series O (Migration), No. 3, Migration Laws and Treaties (1928), Vol. I, p. 329: "There has been . . . in the last few years, a tendency to consider as a misdemeanor neglect to contribute to the support of dependents, and thus to include a negative offense of this kind in the class of extraditable offenses. In some cases the compulsory return of an emigrant who is guilty of having left his dependents without resources can thus be obtained."
page 73 note 1 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 38 to 46. In his Résumé he says (p. 46): “L’extradition n’a lieu que pour les ‘grands crimes.’ … Une énumération des faits passibles d’extradition est contenue dans certains traités; mais cette énumération n’est pas toujours limitative.”
page 73 note 2 Ibid., p. 420.
page 73 note 3 Ibid., p. 423.
page 74 note 1 Appendix VI, No. 8.
page 74 note 2 Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 15; Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed. by McNair, 1928), I, §329, p. 567; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §§28–30, pp. 36–38.
page 74 note 3 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §§16–27, pp. 21–35; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §311, p. 568.
page 74 note 4 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 120.
page 74 note 5 See the situation with regard to piracy as between the United States and Great Britain under the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. Piggott, Extradition (1920), pp. 72 and 73.
page 74 note 6 Attorney-General Cushing in 1885 said: “All the treaties of extradition between the United States and foreign governments are defective as to the enumeration of crimes, in these respects, namely: … 3. Cases occur in each treaty of crimes imperfectly described, with irregularity of imperfection.” Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §95, p. 108. See, also, for illustrations of difficulties as to interpretation of extradition treaties, Moore, op. cit., §§97–101, pp. 113–131; In re Arton (No. 1) [1895] 1 Q.B. 108, also in Clarke, Extradition (4th ed., 1903), pp. 189–193; Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 215–235.
“ … doubts and controversies have arisen from the attempt to include under one definition crimes of a character similar, but not identical, in the cases of the contracting the crimes or offenses as to which each should claim the benefit of extradition; as, for instance, in the case of a treaty with France, we should say we will give up to you those which are charged with the offenses specified in such and such articles of your penal code if you shall give up to us those who are charged with the offenses specified in such and such sections of our Consolidated Statutes.” Mr. Neate, Report from the Select Committee [of the House of Commons] on Extradition (1868), p. ix.
page 75 note 1 See Appendix I.
page 75 note 2 “All the treaties of extradition between the United States and foreign governments are defective as to the enumeration of crimes, in these respects, namely: 1. Crimes are inserted or omitted in a given treaty, without regard to their relative importance. 2. Crimes are inserted in some treaties, and omitted in others, without regard to any rule. …” Attorney-General Cushing (1855), quoted in Moore, loc. cit. Moore continues (p. 109) by pointing out that these observations were still more applicable in 1891, and suggests that this is due to changing points of view of Secretaries of State, and of the Senate.
“The present condition of affairs is, however, very unsatisfactory, since there are many hundreds of treaties in existence which do not at all agree in their details.” Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed. by McNair, 1928), I, §328, p. 567. See also Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 124–133.
page 75 note 3 Publications of the League of Nations, v. Legal, 1926, v. 8, p. 3; 20 American Journal of International Law, Supplement (1926), p. 245.
page 76 note 1 Publications of the League of Nations, v. Legal, 1926, v. 8, p. 5; 20 American Journal of International Law, Supplement (1926), p. 250.
page 76 note 2 Travers, L’Entr’aide Répressive Internationale et La Loi Française du 10 Mars 1927 (1928), p. 35. See also: Fauchille, Traité du Droit International Public (1922), Vol. I, p. 1009.
page 76 note 3 See Appendix I.
page 76 note 4 Appendix, III, No. 1.
page 76 note 5 Ibid., No. 2.
page 76 note 6 Ibid., No. 3.
page 76 note 7 Appendix IV, No. 3.
page 76 note 8 Appendix III, No. 5.
page 76 note 9 Ibid., No. 6.
page 76 note 10 Ibid., No. 7.
page 76 note 11 Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 77 note 1 Appendix III, No. 4.
page 77 note 2 Appendix IV, No. 5.
page 77 note 3 Appendix VI, No. 6.
page 77 note 4 Ibid., No. 7.
page 77 note 5 See Brazil-Paraguay, Appendix I, No. 8; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 11; Finland-Sweden, Appendix I, No. 17.
page 77 note 6 See Estonia-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, Appendix I, No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, Appendix I, No. 6; Estonia-Norway, Appendix I, No. 76. Similar in this respect are the provisions of the Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3, and the Bustamante Code of 1928, Appendix III, No. 5. Cf. Finland-Norway, Appendix I, No. 35, where a different standard of punishment is set for a demand by Finland from that for a demand by Norway.
page 78 note 1 See Central American Extradition Convention of 1934 Art. 1, Appendix III, No. 7; Italy-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 10; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 12; Bulgaria-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 16; Albania-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 44; Roumania-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Appendix J, No. 39; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 52; Hungary-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 61; Bulgaria-Greece, Appendix I, No. 62; Spain-Bulgaria, Appendix I, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Appendix I, No. 74; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 83. Cf. Finland-Italy, Appendix I, No. 66, where a different standard is set for a demand by Finland from that for a demand by Italy.
page 78 note 2 E.g., United States Code Annotated, Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure, Chap. 20, Appendix VI, No. 15; British Extradition Act, 1870, 33 and 34 Vict., c. 52, Appendix VI, No. 8.
page 78 note 3 Italy, Penal Code, Art. 13, Appendix VI, No. 10; Jugoslavia, Criminal Code, 1929, Art. 494; Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which have adopted the Russian Penal Code, 1914, Art. 852 (1).
page 78 note 4 Mexican Law of May 17, 1897, Art. 2, III.
page 78 note 5 Memorandum prepared by the Legal Division of the Cuban Department of State.
page 78 note 6 Ecuador Law of Oct. 8,1921, Chap. VI, Art. 37, II; Peruvian Extradition Law, Oct. 23, 1888, Art. 2.
page 78 note 7 French Extradition Law, March 10, 1927, Art. 4, Appendix VI, No. 6.
page 79 note 1 See the Model Draft of an Extradition Treaty of the International Penal and Prison Commission of 1931, Art. I, Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 79 note 2 New York Penal Law § 1937; Clark and Marshall, Law of Crimes (3rd ed., 1927), § 3, pp. 7–11; Bishop, Criminal Law (9th ed., 1923), Vol. I, §§614–622, pp. 446–52.
page 80 note 1 Re de Giocomo (Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, 1874), 12 Blatchford’s Reports 391; Re J. S. Barbour (Argentina, 1894), 8 Fallos de la Corte Suprema, 11; Re Insull (Greece, 1932), 31 Michigan Law Review (1933), 544; Resolutions of Oxford (1880), Art. 17, Appendix IV, No. 2; Travers, Le Droit Pénal International (1921), IV, pp. 726–733; Bernard, Traité de l’Extradition (2d ed. 1890), II, p. 340; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §371, p. 568; Moore, Digest of International Law (1906), IV, p. 269; Hyde, International Law (1922), Vol. II, p. 50; Mercier, L’Extradition, Académie de Droit International, 3 Recueil de Cours (1930), p. 180; Puente, , “Principles of International Extradition in Latin America,” 28 Michigan Law Review (1930), p. 665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 81 note 1 Appendix IV, No. 2.
page 81 note 2 Such exception has been repeated in the Model Draft of an Extradition Treaty, International Penal and Prison Commission (1931), Art. 3, Appendix IV, No. 6, and by the Conference on Comparative Law, 1932, Resolution II. Such exception would cover a case of an offense connected with maritime affairs, the requested State having no maritime jurisdiction. It is not felt that such situations are sufficiently important or frequent to be Erovided for in a multipartite convention, but that, as need arises, they can be met by bipartite arrangements.
page 81 note 3 1 Phillimore, International Law (1854), p. 413 (2d ed., p. 443, 3rd ed., p. 521); Pomeroy, International Law (1886), pp. 237, 238; Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §96, pp. 112–113; Diena, Etude sur l’Extradition (1905), p. 18; Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 228; Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed. by McNair, 1928), I, §331, p. 570; St. Aubin, l’Extradition et le Droit Extraditionnel (1913), I, pp. 681, 682.
page 81 note 4 Travers, Droit Pénal International (1920), Vol. IV, p. 655 ff.
page 81 note 5 Matter of John Anderson (1860), 20 Upper Canada Queens Bench Rep., 124; (1861), 11 Upper Canada Common Pleas, 9, where kill ling by a slave in making his escape in Missouri was murder, but by the Canadian law was excusable, being committed in self-defense; In re Windsor (1865), 10 Cox. Criminal Cases, 118, 12 Law Times (New Series), 307, where the act, made forgery in the third degree by the law of New York State, was not forgery by the law of England. In this case the court also suggested that an act to be extraditable at the request of the United States, would have to be a crime by the general law of the United States, and not by that of a State alone, but this was not the basis of decision, and no such doctrine has in fact been acted upon in Extradition cases. On the contrary, in Re O’Conner [1928], 1 Western Weekly Reports, 65, the Canadian court held that it was the United States which had to make application in case of a crime against the California law, and that it would look to the California law and the law of Canada to see if the offense came under the treaty. Other Canadian cases applying the principle of double criminality are Re Latimer (1906), 10 Canadian Criminal Cases, 244; Re William Stagg (1912), 20 Canadian Criminal Cases, 306; Ex parte Thomas (1917), 38 Dominion Law Reports, 716; Re Clark [1929] 3 Dominion Law Reports, 737; Re Brooks (1930), 66 Ontario 158.
page 82 note 1 Fontes Juris Gentium, A, 2, Vol. I, pp. 91, 423.
page 82 note 2 Travers, Droit Pinal International (1921), Vol. IV, §§2152–2153 II, pp. 658–664. See the case of Popenjoy, wanted for perjury in New York, the acts charged not constituting perjury in Austria. New York Times, Oct. 1, 1934.
page 82 note 3 Wright v. Henkel (1903), 190 United States Reports, 40 (where the provision of the treaty involved expressly provided for double criminality); Pettit v. Walshe (1904), 194 United States Reports, 205; Collins v. Loisel (1922), 259 United States Reports, 309. See also Re Frank (1901), 107 Fed. 272. The only dissenting suggestion was to be found in Re Metzger (1847), 17 Federal Cases 232 (No. 9511).
page 82 note 4 (1933), 290 United States Reports, 276.
page 82 note 5 In United States v. Hecht (1927), 16 Federal Reports (2d series), 955, it was held, under the United States-British Treaty including “offenses if made criminal by the laws of both countries against bankruptcy law,” that the fact that the act for which extradition is sought was made criminal in the requested State after it was committed does not prevent extradition.
page 82 note 6 See the full discussion and criticism of this case by Hudson, Manley O., “The Factor Case and Double Criminality in Extradition,” 28 American Journal of International Law (1934), pp. 274 to 306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Borchard, Edwin M., “The Factor Extradition Case” (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 28 ibid., pp. 742 to 746.
page 83 note 1 South American Convention of 1889, Appendix III, No. 2; Convention of Montevideo of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6; Central American Convention of 1934, Appendix III, No. 7.
page 83 note 2 Draft Convention of Rio de Janeiro, 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3; Model Draft of International Penal and Prison Commission, Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 83 note 3 Travers’ Projet (Appendix IV, No. 4) requires criminal punishability of the act under the law of the requesting State only.
page 83 note 4 Bustamante Code (Appendix III, No. 5) and Oxford Resolutions (Appendix IV, No. 2) are not mentioned among the “non-list” conventions as, though not containing a list of crimes, they stipulate that such a list shall be included in the bipartite extradition treaties.
page 83 note 5 Convention of Montevideo of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6; Draft Convention of Rio de Janeiro of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3; Model Draft of International Penal and Prison Commission, Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 83 note 6 South American Convention of 1889, Appendix III, No. 2; Model Draft of International Penal and Prison Commission, Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 83 note 7 Estonia-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, Appendix L No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, Appendix I, No. 6; Brazil-Paraguay, Appendix I, No. 8; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 11; Finland-Sweden, Appendix I, No. 17; Bulgaria-Rumania, Appendix I, No. 22; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 37; Czechoslovakia-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 39; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 52; Hungary-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 61; Bulgaria-Greece, Appendix I, No. 62; Spain-Bulgaria, Appendix L No. 73; Spain-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 74; Latvia-Sweden, Appendix I, No. 78; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 83.
page 83 note 8 Italy-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 10; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 12; Bulgaria-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 16; Albania-Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 44.
page 83 note 9 German Extradition Law, Dec. 23,1929, Art. 2, Appendix VI, No. 7; Italy, Penal Code, Art. 13, Appendix VI, No. 10; Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia which adopted the Russian Penal Code, 1914, Art. 852 (1). Haiti requires that punishment be “corporal” and “ignominious,” but it is not clear whether this is by the law of both States, or by the law of Haiti.
page 83 note 10 Imprisonment: Costa Rica, Penal Code, Chap. II, Art. 230; Finland, Extradition Law, Feb. 11,1913, Sec. 4; Sweden, Extradition Law, June 4, 1913, Sec. 4, Appendix VI, No. 12. Minimum imprisonment of one year: Panama, Law No. 44, Nov. 22,1930, Art. 3; Siam, Extradition Act, B.E. 2472, Art. 4. Death or minimum imprisonment of six years, Uruguay, Penal Code, Art. 12.
page 84 note 1 Mexico, Law of May 17, 1887, Art. 2, III.
page 84 note 2 Extradition Law. March 10, 1927, Art. 4, Appendix VI, No. 6.
page 84 note 3 Equador, Law of Oct. 8, 1921, Chap. VI, Art. 37, II; Peru, Extradition Law, Oct. 23, 1888, Art. 2.
page 84 note 4 Appendix VI, No. 8.
page 84 note 5 The King v. Stone (1911), 17 Canadian Criminal Cases, 377.
page 84 note 6 (1903), 190 United States Reports, 40.
page 84 note 7 (1922), 259 United States Reports, 309.
page 84 note 8 (1904), 194 United States Reports, 205.
page 85 note 1 (1933), 290 United States Reports, 276.
page 85 note 2 Art. 9: “The extradition shall take place only if the evidence be found sufficient according to the laws of the High Contracting Party applied to, either to justify the committal of the prisoner for trial, in case the crime or offense had been committed in the territory of such High ContractingParty, or to prove that the prisoner is the identical person convicted by the courts of the High Contracting Party who makes the requisition, and that the crime or offense of which he has been convicted is one in respect of which extradition could, at the time of such convention, have been granted by the High Contracting Party applied to.” Appendix V, No. 1.
page 86 note 1 See Appendix I, Nos. 37, 61 and 74. Sympathy with such position seems to be indicated when the Supreme Court of the United States in Factor’s case emphasized the fact that the crime in question was made criminal in several of the States, though it was not an offense in Illinois. See discussion earlier in this comment.
page 86 note 2 See the view expressed by Borchard, Edwin M., “The Factor Extradition Case,” 28 American Journal of International Law (1934), pp. 742 to 746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 86 note 3 (1933), 290 United States Reports, 276.
page 86 note 4 See Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime (1935), of the Research in International Law, infra, p. 435 ff.
page 86 note 5 See, e.g., the following statutes: Argentina, Art. 3, sec. (3), Appendix VI, No. 1; Finland, Art. 3; France, Art. 5, sec. (3), Appendix VI, No. 6; Norway, Art. 4, sec. (1); Sweden, Art. 3, Appendix VI, No. 12; Switzerland, Art. 12, Appendix VI, No. 13.
page 87 note 1 In re Meunier (Tribunal Fédéral, Oct. 30, 1880), 6 Recueil Officiel des Arrêts, 616: Veyssière v. l’Ambassade de France (Tribunal fédéral, April 17, 1896), 22 Recueil Officiel des Arrêts, 397.
page 87 note 2 It may be noted here that the Model Draft, prepared as late as 1931, by the International Penal and Prison Commission, provides that extradition shall not be granted, as a rule, when the offence was committed within the requested State. Art. 4, Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 87 note 3 See, e.g., the statutes of Peru (1888), Art. 1, and of Panama (1930), Art. 3.
page 87 note 4 Liberia-Monaco, Art. 1, Appendix I, No. 48; Persia-Afghanistan, 1928, 104 L.N.T.S. 499. The latter is a Protocol to the Treaty of Friendship concluded in 1921, 33 L.N.T.S. 285. The earliest multilateral extradition provision, contained in the Treaty of Amiens, provided for the extradition of offenses “commis dans la juridiction de la partie requérante” (Art. 20), Appendix III, No. 1.
page 87 note 5 Field’s International Code provides, in Art. 210, that the offense must have been committed “within the jurisdiction” of the requesting State. Appendix IV, No. 1. Field apparently intended to use “jurisdiction” in a limited sense,—i.e., meaning territorial jurisdiction only: not in the broader sense which may include jurisdiction (for example, on the ground of personal allegiance) over crimes committed abroad. This may be implied from the fact that there are no provisions in his code for extradition for offenses committed either in the requested, or in a third, State.
See also the draft adopted in 1928 by the International Law Association, which limits extradition to crimes committed “within the territory” of the requesting State. (Art. 1), Appendix IV, No. 5.
page 88 note 1 See the Resolutions of Oxford of 1880, Art. 6: “on doit considérer comme désirable que la juridiction du forum delicti commissi soit, autant que possible, appellée à juger.” Appendix IV, No. 2.
page 88 note 2 See Travers, L’entr’aide Répressive Internationale (1928), §119, pp. 116–117:
“On peut dire qu’il y a accord, à peu près unanime sur ce point que les juridictions de I’Etat requérant doivent être compétentes d’après les principes du droit international.
“Mais cette formule générale admise, les controverses les plus dédicates s’élèvent pour la détermination de sa partie pratique.
“Quatre phases marquent l’évolution.
“La conception la plus étroite, longtemps acceptée, ne considérant l’extradition comme légitime qu’au profit de l’Etat sur le territoire duquel l’infraction a été commise, est la mise en oeuvre de l’idée erronée qu’une competénce pénale n’est justifiée que si elle est de nature territoriale.
“Le second stade est l’admission de la compétence répressive à l’encontre des nationaux et suiets. …
“La troisième phase de la marche des idées s’analyse dans cette formule vague que la compétence répressive que se reconnait l’Etat requérant ne doit pas aller à l’encontre des règies du droit public du pays requis, formule qui, en fait, se résume dans cette idée que le droit de juridiction invoqué par l’Etat requérant doit être considéré comme légitimement réclamé, bien que n’étant basé ni sur le lieu de perpétration, ni sur l’allégeance du délinquent ou présumé tel, toutes les fois que l’Etat requis attribue lui-même; dans des conditions identiques, droit de juger à ses propres tribunaux. Le progrès est déjà sensible. …
“Nous estimons que ce stage lui-même devrait être dépassé. Un Etat peut très bien admettre qu’un autre pays peut avoir besoin, pour la protection de ses intérêts généraux, d’une competénce répressive tout particulierement étendue …”
page 89 note 1 112 L.N.T.S. 371; Hudson, International Legislation (1931), Vol. IV, p. 2692. Art. 5 of this convention provides: “No distinction should be made in the scale of punishment for offenses referred to in Article 3 [enumerating, much in the language used in extradition treaties, various forms of counterfeiting crimes] between acts relating to domestic currency on the one hand and to foreign currency on the other; this provision may not be made subject to any condition of reciprocal treatment by law or by treaty.”
page 90 note 1 See on this question the enlightening article of Professor Sack, A. N., “(Non-) Enforcement of Foreign Revenue Laws, in International Law and Practice,” 81 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1933), p. 559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 90 note 2 Art. 27 reads: “A receiving state and a sending state shall apply the provisions of an extradition treaty in force between them to a person who is charged with having committed, while a member of a mission of the sending state or a member of the administrative personnel of such a mission, an offense against the law of the sending state, if such person would have been subject to extradition under such treaty, had the offense been committed in the territory of the sending state.” See also the comment under this article.
Should such a Convention on Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities not be in force when this Convention is proposed for adoption, the insertion of a provision such as is contained in Art. 27 may be advisable.
page 90 note 3 See Draft Convention on Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities of the Research in International Law, Article 26 and comment.
page 90 note 4 See Draft Convention on Piracy of the Research in International Law, Art. 2. See also, Hall, International Law (8th ed.), p. 317; Beauchet, Traité de l’Extradition (1899), §283, p. 157.
page 90 note 5 See Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §110, p. 141.
page 90 note 6 Ibid.
page 91 note 1 In re Tivnan (1864), 5 Best & Smith 645; 122 English Reports 971. There was a strong dissent by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. See comment on this case in Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §113, p. 143; Clarke Extradition (4th ed., 1903), pp. 142–148.
page 91 note 2 Art. 6, Appendix VI, No. 8. See also Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 71–72.
page 92 note 1 The provision is contained in all these treaties in Art. 1 (references are to Appendix I): United States-Siam, No. 7; United States-Venezuela, No. 13; United States-Latvia, No. 14; United States-Estonia, No. 15; Great Britain-Latvia, No. 20; United States-Finland, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria. No. 24; Great Britain-Finland, No. 25; United StatesvLithuania, No. 26; Great Britain-Estonia, No. 30; United States-Czechoslovakia, No. 31; Great Britain-Albania. No. 47; United States-Poland, No. 57; United States-Germany, No. 70; United States-Austria, No. 71; also Appendix V, No. 2. The treaty of Amiens of 1802 also provides for extradition for offenses “commis dans la juridiction de la partie requirantc.” (Art. 20), Appendix III, No. 1.
page 92 note 2 See Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §103, pp. 134–135, and authorities there cited. Hyde, International Law (1922), Vol. I, pp. 567,591. It is interesting to note in this connection that the United StatesrGerman treaty uses the phraseology: “territorial jurisdiction”. (Art. 1), Appendix I, No. 70.
page 92 note 3 (References are to Appendix I): Estoniaj-Latvia, Art. 1, No. 4: Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 1, No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 1, No. 6; Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 1, No. 22; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (b), No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (b), No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia. Art. 1 (b), No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (b), No. 50; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 1 (b), No. 62.
page 92 note 4 (References are to Appendix I): Hungary-Rumania, Art. 1, No. 27; Finland-Norway, Art. 2, No. 35; Bulgaria-Turkey, Arts. 1, 4 (h), No. 65; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1, No. 86; Austria-Belgium, Art. 1, No. 90.
page 93 note 1 (References are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 3, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Art. 3, No. 18; Switzerland-Uruguay, Arts. 3 (b), 5, No. 19; Finland-Latvia. Arts. 1, 4, No. 21; Estonia-Finland, Art. 4, No. 33; Austria-Norway, Arts. 1, 5, No. 34 (Art. 5 of this treaty provides: “Extradition shall not be granted: (1) It the offense giving rise to the demand for extradition is regarded by the laws of the country to which the demand is submitted as having been committed in that country”); Austria-Estonia, Art. 4, No. 45; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 53; France-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 1, 4, No. 60; also in Appendix V, No. 5; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3, No. 61; Latvia-Hungary, Art. 4, No. 64 (this treaty puts, in addition to the proviso, a further check on extradition for crimes committed outside the requesting state byproviding that “the offensemustbe punishable under the laws of the place where it was committed”); Germany-Turkey, Art. 6 (1), (3), No. 75; also in Appendix V, No. 3; Estonia-Denmark, Art. 3, No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 4, No. 78; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 2, No. 79; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 4, No. 80; Poland-Sweden, Art. 2, No. 81; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (3), (4), No. 89; Austria-Latvia, Arts. 3 (2), 4, No. 92.
page 93 note 2 (References are to Appendix I): France-Latvia, Art. 1, No. 29; France-Poland, Art. 1, No. 32; Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 1, No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 1, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 1, No. 42; France-San Marino, Art. 1, No. 43; Albania-Yugoslavia, Art. 4, No. 44; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1, No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1, No. 52; Latvia-Norway, Art. 2, No. 55; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 1, No. 56; Belgium-Finland, Art. 1, No. 58; Austria-Finland, Art. 1, No. 59; Colombia-Nicaragua, Arts. 1, 2, No. 63; Finland-Italy, Art. 5, No. 66; Italy-Venezuela, Art. 3, No. 67; Austria-Sweden. Art. 4, No. 72; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 1, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 1, No. 74; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1, No. 83; Belgium-Poland, Art. 1, No. 85; also in Appendix V, No. 6; Brazil-Italy, Art. 3, No. 87, also in Appendix V, No. 4.
page 93 note 3 Art. 9, Appendix VI, No. 1.
page 93 note 4 Art. 3, par. (3), Appendix VI, No. 6.
page 93 note 5 Appendix III, No. 4.
page 93 note 6 Appendix IV, No. 3.
page 93 note 7 (References are to Appendix I): France-Poland, Art. 4 (3). No. 32; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (c), No. 36; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (c), No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (c). No. 39; Albania-Yugoslavia. Art. 4, No. 44; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (c), No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (c), No. 51; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 53; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 1 (c), No. 62; Austria-Sweden, Art. 4 (3), No. 72; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 1 (c), No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 1 (c). No. 74; Poland-Sweden, Art. 4 (b). No. 81; Italy-Brazil, Art. 7, No. 87; also in Appendix V, No. 4; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (4), No. 89.
page 93 note 8 (References are to Appendix I): Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (c), No. 52; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3 (3), No. 61; Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 1, No. 65; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1 (c), No. 83.
page 93 note 9 (References are to Appendix I): France-Czechoslovakia, Arts. 4 (1), 5, No. 60; also in Appendix V, No. 5; Belgium-Poland, Art. 3 (1), No. 85; also in Appendix V, No. 6.
page 94 note 1 Art. 4, par. (3), Appendix VI, No. 7.
page 94 note 2 Art. 6, Appendix VI, No. 8.
page 94 note 3 Art. 12, Appendix VI, No. 4.
page 94 note 4 (References are to Appendix I): Italy-Yugoslavia, Art. 1, No. 10; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 1, No. 12; Colombia-Panama, Arts. 2 (a), 3, No. 64; also in Appendix V, No. 7. Cf. with Art. 351 of the Bustamante Code (1928): “In order to grant extradition, it is necessary that the offense has been committed in the territory of the requesting State, or that its penal laws are applicable to it. …” Appendix III, No. 5.
page 94 note 5 It may also be noted that while the number of treaties incorporating this reservation is fairly large—twenty-one—the parties are recruited from a comparatively small circle of nations. None of the Anglo-Saxon, none of the Far Eastern nations, nor any of the Latin-American countries, with the exception of Brazil (see Italy-Brazil, Art. 7, Appendix I, No. 87; also in Appendix V, No. 4), is a party to a treaty containing this reservation.
page 95 note 1 20 American Journal of International Law, Spl. Supp., (1926), p. 248, at p. 251.
page 95 note 2 As for the meaning generally of the term “territory” in this Convention, see Article 1, par. (c). and comment on that paragraph.
page 95 note 3 Cf. Article 8 (c) of this Convention.
page 95 note 4 See, e.g., the British Extradition Act of 1870, Art. 25, Appendix VI, No. 8: “For the purposes of this Act,… every vessel of [a] foreign state shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction and to be part of such foreign state.” Cf. the identical provision in the Canadian Extradition Act of 1927, Art. 2 (d), Appendix VI, No. 4.
page 95 note 5 See, e.g., the following treaties which provide that extradition shall not be granted if the offense has been committed within the territory of the requested State “or on board a vessel of its nationality” (references are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 3, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Art. 3, No. 18; Estonia-Finland, Art. 4, No. 33; Austria-Estonia, Art. 4, No. 45; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3, No. 61; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 2, No. 79; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 4, No. 80; Poland-Sweden, Art. 2, No. 81; Austria-Latvia, Art. 3 (2), No. 92.
page 96 note 1 See, however, United States-Germany treaty, Art. 1, Appendix I, No. 70; see also the Draft Convention adopted in 1928 by the International Law Association, Art. 18, Appendix IV, No. 5.
page 96 note 2 Art. 1, Appendix I, No. 70. See also the Estonia-Denmark treaty of 1930 which provides that extradition shall not be granted for offenses committed within the territory of the requested State or on board of its vessel when on the high seas. Art. 3, Appendix I, No. 77. Cf. the draft convention adopted by the International Law Association which defines territory as including ships and aircraft on the high seas. Art. 18, Appendix IV, No. 5.
page 96 note 3 145 Fallos de la Corte Suprema 402; Annual Digest of International Law Cases, 1925–26, p. 305. The extradition was requested by virtue of the treaty of 1896 between the United States and Argentina. The court held: “In the relevant clause of the treaty the word ‘territory’ comprised, for the purposes of extradition, crimes committed on the high seas on board merchant or war vessels carrying the Argentine or United States flag, crimes committed on war vessels of both nations, and in the house of a diplomatic agent of either country. This court held previously, in interpreting the extradition treaty with Italy, that if a crime committed in one State affected exclusively the rights and interests of another, the repressive jurisdiction belongs to the latter. In the instant case the crime of larceny committed by an employee of an American merchantman, although committed in Brazilian territorial waters, injured only the rights and interests of the United States.”
page 98 note 1 For the various views advanced, see the discussions of the Institut de Droit International at its Madrid meeting in 1911, 24 Annuaire de l’Institut, pp. 279–299, 321; Baldwin, , “The Law of the Airship,” 4 American Journal of International Law (1910), p. 95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hershey, , “The International Law of Aërial Space,” 6 ibid. (1912), p. 381 Google Scholar; Hazeltine, The Law of the Air (1911), passim; Foulke, International Law (1920), §224, p. 287.
page 98 note 2 See Art. 1, par. (f) and comment thereon. Cf. also Draft Convention on Piracy of the Research in International Law, Art. 1, sec. (2).
page 98 note 3 Art. 1, 11 L.N.T.S. 174, Hudson, International Legislation (1931), I, 359.
page 98 note 4 10 and 11 George V, c. 80, Preamble. See also sec. 14, par. (1).
page 98 note 5 44 Stat., pt. 2, p. 572, sec. 6 (a). With regard to a rather general statutory assumption of criminal jurisdiction of airspace over land and over territorial waters, see Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime of the Research in International Law, Art. 1, comment, infra p. 470.
page 98 note 6 McNair, The Law of the Air (1932), pp. 87, 94.
page 98 note 7 Hudson, , “Aviation and International Law”, 24 American Journal of International Law (1930), pp. 228, 238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 98 note 8 See, e.g., Convention of May 26, 1923, between Norway and Sweden, Art. 1. 18 L.N.T.S. 173.
page 98 note 9 This law is adopted in twenty States of the Union. See Russell, Crimes (8th ed. 1923), Vol. I, pp. 29–57.
page 100 note 1 For detailed analyses of the arguments advanced, respectively, in support of the opposing theories, see Beauchet, Traité de l’Extradition (1899), §§303–323, pp. 168–180; Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 217–227.
page 101 note 1 4 Annvaire, de l’Institvi, p. 220 ff.
page 101 note 2 (References are to Appendix I): Greece-Germany, Art. 4 (1), No. 2; Chile-Colombia, Art. 5 (2), No. 3; Estonia-Latvia, Art. 4 (a), No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 4 (a), No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 4 (a), No. 6; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 11; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 7, No. 12; United States-Latvia, Art. 5, No. 14; Finland-Sweden, Art. 4 (2), No. 17; Finland-Denmark, Art. 6 (2) No. 18; Finland-Latvia, Art. 5 (a), No. 21; France-Latvia, Art. 5, No. 29; France-Poland, Art. 4 (7), No. 32; Estonia-Finland, Art. 5 (a), No. 33; Austria-Norway, Art. 5 (3), No. 34; Finland-Norway, Art. 5 (3), No. 35; Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 5 (1), No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 3 (1), No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 3 (1), No. 42; France-San Marino, Art. 4, No. 43; Albania-Yugoslavia, Art. 6, No. 44; Austria-Estonia, Art. 5 (a), No. 45; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 5, No. 48; Latvia-Norway, Art. 5 (3), No. 55; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 3 (1), No. 56; Belgium-Finland, Art. 3 (1), No. 58; Austria-Finland, Art. 4 (1), No. 59; Latvia-Hungary, Art. 5 (a), No. 64; Finland-Italy, Art. 6 (3), No. 66; Germany-United States, Art. 6, No. 70; Austria-Sweden, Art. 5 (2), No. 72; Estonia-Norway, Art. 5 (3), No. 76; Denmark-Estonia, Art. 6 (2), No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 5 (2), No. 78; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 5 (2), No. 79; Poland-Sweden, Art. 4 (a), No. 81; Belgium-Poland, Art. 3 (2), No. 85; also in Appendix V, No. 6; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (2), No. 86; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (d), No. 89; Austria-Belgium, Art. 11 (3), No. 90; Austria-Latvia, Art. 3 (4), No. 92. Some of these treaties use the permissive form; see, e.g., Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 11.
page 102 note 1 Art. 5 (b), Appendix III, No. 4.
page 102 note 2 Art. 5, Appendix IV, No. 5.
page 102 note 3 See, e.g. (references are to Appendix VI): Germany, Art. 4 (2), No. 7; Greece, Art. 4, par. 2 (4), No. 9; Sweden, Art. 9 (2), No. 12; Belgium, Art. 7, No. 2; Switzerland, Art. 6, No. 13; Finland, Art. 7 (2); Peru, Art. 3 (3).
page 102 note 4 Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, Art. 8, Appendix I, No. 16; Italy-Brazil, Art. 6 (a), Appendix I, No. 87; also in Appendix V, No. 4. The same rule is found in mandatory form in the South American Convention of Rio de Janeiro of 1889, Art. 19 (4), Appendix III, No. 2; in the Model Draft prepared by the International Penal and Prison Commission, Art. 10, Appendix IV, No. 5. For national extradition statutes adopting this position, see, e.g., Argentina, Art. 3 (5), Appendix VI, No. 1; Panama, Art. 5 (c).
page 102 note 5 E.g. (references are to Appendix I): United States-Siam, Art. 5, No. 7; United States-Venezuela, Art. 5, No. 13; United States-Finland, Art. 5, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria, Art. 5, No. 24; United States-Lithuania, Art. 5, No. 26.
page 102 note 6 (References are to Appendix I): United States-Estonia, Art. 5, No. 15; Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 3 (d), No. 19; Finland-Great Britain, Art. 5, No. 25; Great Britain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 28; Estonia-Great Britain, Art. 5, No. 30; United States-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5, No. 31; Lithuania-Great Britain, Art. 5, No. 46; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (2), No. 53; Colombia-Panama, Art. 2 (c), No. 54; also in Appendix V, No. 7; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3, par. I (5), No. 61; Germany-Turkey, Art. 6 (4), No. 75; also in Appendix V, No. 3. See also to the same effect the following multipartite conventions: Convention of Montevideo, December, 1933. Art. 3 (a), Appendix III, No. 6; Central American Convention of April 12,1934, Art. 2 (3), Appendix III, No. 7; Bustamante Code, Art. 359, Appendix III, No. 5. The same rule was adopted in the Draft Convention of Rio de Janeiro of 1912, Art. 2 (d), Appendix IV, No. 3; and in the Resolutions of the Comparative Law Congress of 1932, Art. IV (2). See also the French extradition statute, Art. 5 (5), Appendix VI, No. 6.
page 103 note 1 Hungary-Rumania, Art. 5, Appendix I, No. 27; United States-Poland, Art. 5, Appendix I, No. 57; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 5 (1), Appendix I, No. 80.
page 103 note 2 (References are to Appendix I): Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 4 (e), No. 22; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f). No. 52; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (3), No. 60; also in Appendix V, No. 5; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 3 (f), No. 62; Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 4 (e), No. 65; United States-Austria, Art. 5, No. 71; also in Appendix V, No. 2; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 3 (f), No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 3 (f), No. 74; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 83.
page 103 note 3 It may be observed that, with the exception of the United States-Austria treaty and Spain’s treaties with Bulgaria and Latvia, in all the treaties in this group Czechoslovakia is one of the contracting parties, or they were concluded between States of the Balkan peninsula.
page 104 note 1 See, e.g. (references are to Appendix I): Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 4 (e). No. 22; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f). No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 50; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3, par. I (5), No. 61; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 3 (f), No. 62; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 3 (f), No. 73; Belgium-Poland, Art. 3 (2), No. 85, also in Appendix V, No. 6.
page 104 note 2 See, e.g. (references are to Appendix I): Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 5 (1), No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 3 (1), No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 3 (1), No. 42; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (2), No. 53; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 3 (1), No. 56; Belgium-Finland, Art. 3 (1), No. 58; Austria-Finland, Art. 4 (1), No. 59; Belgium-Poland, Art. 3 (2), No. 85, also in Appendix V, No. 6.
page 104 note 3 See, e.g,. Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 3 (d). Appendix I, No. 19; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (3), Appendix I, No. 60, also in Appendix V, No. 5.
page 104 note 4 See, e.g. (references are to Appendix I): Rumania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f). No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (f), No. 52; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 3 (f), No. 62; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 3 (f), No. 73; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 5 (1), No. 80; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (e), No. 83; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (2), No. 86; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (d), No. 89.
page 104 note 5 Art. 3 (a), Appendix III, No. 6.
page 104 note 6 Art. 5 (5), Appendix VI, No. 6. Italics inserted.
page 105 note 1 Queen’s Bench (1898), 14 Times Law Reports, 252.
page 105 note 2 Art. 5 of the treaty provided: “The extradition shall not take place if, subsequently to the commission of the crime or the institution of the penal prosecution or the conviction thereon, exemption from prosecution or punishment has been acquired by lapse of time according to the laws of the State applied to.”
page 105 note 3 Law Reports [1907], 2 King’s Bench, 861.
page 105 note 4 The text of Art. 5 is identical with the provision contained in Art. 5 of the England-Netherlands treaty of 1873, supra.
page 105 note 5 King’s Bench (1908), 96 Times Law Reports, 821.
page 106 note 1 Art. 9 of the treaty provided: “The surrender shall not take place if, since the commission of the acts charged, the accusation, or the conviction, exemption from prosecution or punishment, has been acquired by lapse of time, according to the laws of the country where the accused shall have taken refuge.”
page 106 note 2 Cour d’Appel (Ckambre de Mise en Accusation), Paris, 1928. English translation in Hudson, Cases on International Law (1929), p. 1034. For an analysis of the issues involved in this case, see Lapradelle, Causes Célèbres du Droit des Gens, Affaire Henry M. Blackmer, Extradition (1929).
page 106 note 3 Art. 8 of the treaty provided: “Extradition shall not be granted, in pursuance to the provisions of this convention, … if legal proceedings or the enforcement of the penalty for the act committed by the person claimed have become barred by limitation according to the laws of the country to which the requisition is addressed.”
From an English lawsuit, reported in 22 Journal du Droit International (1895), 232, it appears that France refused, in 1886, to extradite a Henry Llewellyn Winter, sought for perjury, on the ground that prescription of the offense had been acquired under French law and, therefore, extradition may not be granted under Art. 11 of the Anglo-French treaty of August 14, 1876.
page 106 note 4 Cour d’Appel, Bruxelles, Jan. 9, 1897, Pasicrisie Belge, 1897. II. 207.
page 106 note 5 See Appendix VI, No. 2.
page 106 note 6 In re Stanley (Tribunal Fédéral, Aug. 2, 1875), 1 Recueil Officiel des Arrêts, 432. Art. 9 of this treaty provided: “L’extradition pourra être refusée, si la prescription de la peine ou de l’action est acquise d’aprés les lois du pays où le prévenu s’est refugié, depuis les faits imputés ou depuis la poursuite ou la condamnation.”
page 107 note 1 In re Matioti (Tribunal Fédéral, Aug. 25,1877), 3 Recueil Officiel des Arrêts, 546. Art. 14 of this treaty provided: “Non petere l’estradizione aver luogo se dal fatto imputato, dall’ incluesta o dafla condanna in poi, secondo le leggi dello Stato nel quale il prevenuto od il condannato si è rifugiato, è maturata la prescrizione della azione o della pena.”
page 107 note 2 See, e.g., In re Lucas (Tribunal Fédéral, Oct. 28, 1879), 5 Recueil Officiel des Arrêts, 552; In re Roubaud (Trib. Féd., Sept. 18, 1880), 6 ibid., 432; In re Meunier (Trib. Féd., Oct. 30, 1886), 6 ibid., 616; Ambassade de France v. Vaugon (Trib. Féd., March 5, 1886), 12 ibid., 140; Ambassade de France v. Pellegrin (Trib. Féd., Oct. 2, 1886), 12 ibid., 579. For the text of the treaty provision see supra, note 29.
page 107 note 3 Tribunal Fédéral, Oct. 3, 1918, 44 ibid., I, 180.
page 108 note 1 As to political offenses in general, and as to the principle and practice of non-extradition for such offenses, see, e.g., Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §§205–218, pp. 303–326; Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 44–62; Oppenheim, International Law (4th ed., by McNair, 1928), Vol. 1, §§333–337, pp. 573–579; Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 102–119; Beauchet, Traité de l’Extradition (1899), §§324–473, pp. 181–278, and authorities cited.
page 108 note 2 See Moore, op. cit., §§6 and 205, pp. 10 and 303; Clarke, Extradition (4th ed., 1903), p. 22; Beauchet, op. cit, §§324–327, pp. 180–183; Deere, , “Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition,” 27 American Journal of International Law (1933), p. 247, at p. 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 108 note 3 See Beauchet, Traité de l’Extradition (1899), §§329–330, pp. 183–184.
page 109 note 1 Permissive form is used, e.g., in the following treaties: Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, Appendix I, No. 11 (extradition “need not” be granted); Germany-Turkey, Art. 4, Appendix I, No. 75, also Appendix V, No. 3 (the parties “shallnot be bound” to extradite); also in the Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 3 (e), Appendix III, No. 6 (no “duty” to extradite).
page 109 note 2 Among the typical bipartite treaties printed in Appendix V, the mandatory form, providing that a person “shall” or “will” not be surrendered, is used in the following treaties: Italy-Brazil, Art. 5, No. 4; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 5 (extradition “shall not take Elace”); Belgium-Poland, Art. 6, No. 6; Colombia-Panama, Art. 4, No. 7; Finland-Nethertnds. Art. 8, No. 8. The positive mandatory form is used in all treaties to which Great Britain is a party; see, e.g., Great Britain-Finland, Art. 6, Appendix I, No. 25: “A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the crime or offense in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character, …” See also the Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 2, Appendix III, No. 2; the Caracas Convention of 1911, Art. 4, Appendix III, No. 4; the Bustamante Code (1928), Art. 355, Appendix III, No. 5. The Oxford Resolutions of the Institut de droit international (1880), Art. 13, Appendix IV, No. 2, provide that extradition “cannot take place” for political acts. The draft of the International Law Association (1928), Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 5, provides that persons “shall not be surrendered” for political acts. Mandatory form is used also in the Draft of the International Penal and Prison Commission (1931), Art. 6, Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 109 note 3 See, e.g. (references are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 2 (1), No. 17; Austria-Norway, Art. 4, No. 34; Finland-Norway, Art. 4, No. 35; Latvia-Norway, Art. 4, No. 55; Estonia-Norway, Art. 4, No. 76; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 4, No. 79. The formula used in these treaties is: “no request may be made” or, “extradition may not be demanded” for political offenses.
page 109 note 4 See, e.g., United States-Austria, Art. 3, Appendix V, No. 2: “The provisions of the present treaty shall not import a claim of extradition for any crime or offense of a political character …”
page 110 note 1 See, e.g. (references are to Appendix VI): Argentina, Art. 3 (2), No. 1; Canada, Sec. 21, No. 4; France, Art. 5 (2), No. 6; Germany, Art. 3 (1), No. 7; Great Britain, Sec. 3 (1), No. 8; Sweden, Art. 7, No. 12; Switzerland, Art. 10, No. 13.
page 110 note 2 See, e.g., the Russian Penal Code of 1914, at present in force in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Art. 852 (2) of which provides for the possibility of extradition for political offenses as follows: “Extradition … may also be effected when a crime was incited by political motives or was committed in connection with facts which are designated by international conventions as political, …”
page 111 note page 110 note 3 Reichsgericht decision of March 18, 1926, 60 Entscheidungendes Reichsgerichts in Strafsachen, 202. Cf. with Reichsgericht decision of June 25, 1926, 56 Juristische Wochenschrift (1927), 2315, where, in an extradition effected under the German-Spanish treaty of May 2, 1878, the German Supreme Court held that the provision of Art. 6 of the treaty concerning the non-extradition of political offenders cannot be a bar to the prosecution of a person surrendered, without any condition, for murder, even if the Spanish Government, after the surrender, came to the conclusion that it erred in not recognizing the political character of the act.
page 111 note 1 The following treaties do not expressly provide who shall determine the political character of the offense (references are to Appendix I): United States-Siam, Art. 3, No. 7; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4, No. 11; United States-Venezuela, Art. 3, No. 13; United States-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 14; United States-Estonia, Art. 3, No. 15; Switzerland-Uruguay, Art. 3, No. 19; Great Britain-Latvia, Art. 6, No. 20; United States-Finland, Art. 3, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria, Art. 3, No. 24; Great Britain-Finland, Art. 6, No. 25; United States-Lithuania, Art. 3, No. 26; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 3, No. 27; Great Britain-Estonia, Art. 6, No. 30; Great Britain-Lithuania, Art. 6, No. 46; Great Britain-Albania, Art. 6, No. 47; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 3, No. 48; United States-Poland, Art. 3, No. 57; Latvia-Netherlands, Art. 3, No. 68; United States-Germany, Art. 4, No. 70; Germany-Turkey, Art. 4, No. 75, also in Appendix V, No. 3; AustriajBelgium, Art. 3, No. 90. See also the Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 2, Appendix IIL No. 3; the Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 3 (e), Appendix III, No. 6; Field's Code, Art. 215, Appendix IV, No. 1.
page 111 note 2 Mention may be made of the limitation on the requested State’s freedom to determine the political character of the act in some of the Latin American treaties which provide that the requested State should decide the question “according to the law more favorable to the fugitive.” See, e.g., Colombia-Panama, Art. 4 (b), Appendix I, No. 54; Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 3, Appendix I, No. 63. To the same effect is the Montevideo Convention of 1889, Art. 23, Appendix III, No. 2.
page 112 note 1 Such formula is used in the treaties to which Great Britain is a party; see, e.g., Great Britain-Finland, Art. 6, Appendix I, No. 25: “A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered, … if he proves that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been made with a view to try or punish him for a crime or offense of a political character.”
page 112 note 2 See, e.g., the Bustamante Code (1928), Art. 356, Appendix III, No. 5, which provides that extradition shall not be granted “if it is shown” that the request, in fact, was made for the purpose of punishing for a political offense. According to the Canadian Extradition Act, Sec. 21, Appendix VI, No. 4, the fugitive shall not be liable to surrender “if it appears” that such proceedings are being taken with a view to prosecute or punish him for a political offense. To the same effect is the British Extradition Act of 1870, Sec. 3 (1), Appendix VI, No. 8. The French extradition statute Art. 5 (2) Appendix VI, No. 6, excludes extradition “when it appears” that it is requested for a political end. The draft of the International Law Association (1928), Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 5, takes an intermediary position by precluding extradition either if the person sought proves or if the requested State decides that the request is, in fact, made with a view to try or punish him for a political offense.
page 112 note 3 [1896] 1 Queen’s Bench, 108.
page 112 note 4 For comments on this case, see “The Extradition of Arton,” 8 Green Bag (1896), 100; notes in 100 Law Times (1896), 212, 364.
page 113 note 1 Moore, Extradition (1891), Vol. I, §208, p. 308. On the difficulties of defining political offenses, see “The Nature and Definition of Political Offences in International Extradition” (discussion by J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Frederic R. Coudert and Julian W. Mack), 3 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1909), p. 95.
page 113 note 2 A similar test is laid down by Stephen in his History of Criminal Law of England (1883), Vol. II, pp. 70–71; the offense must be part of a group activity, “incidental to and part of political disturbances.” Cf. In re Castioni [1891], 1 Queen’s Bench, 149. Castioni, charged with wilful murder of a member of the State Council of the Canton of Ticino, was arrested in England at the request of the Swiss Government. The extradition was opposed on the ground that the act was committed in the course of an uprising against the government of the Canton and, therefore, a political offense for which extradition is barred under Sec. 3 of the British Extradition Act. Reversing the magistrate's decision, the Court of Queen’s Bench discharged Castioni. In considering the question of what constitutes a political offense, the court said (per Denman, J.): “The question really is whether, upon the facts, it is clear that the man was acting as one of a number of persons engaged in acts of violence of a political character with a political object, and as part of the political movement and rising in which he was taking part.” For a detailed analysis of this case, see Piggott, Extradition (1910), pp. 50–66.
page 114 note 1 Art. 3 (2), Appendix VI, No. 7.
page 114 note 2 Non-extradition only for purely political offenses is provided for in a few treaties, draft conventions and statutes; see, e.g.: Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 4 (a), Appendix I, No. 22; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 3, Appendix I, No. 27; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 4, Appendix I, No. 79; Field’s Code, Art. 215 (1), Appendix IV, No. 1; Oxford; Resolutions, Art. 13, Appendix IV, No. 2; International Law Association draft, Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 5; International Penal and Prison Commission draft, Art. 6, Appendix IV, No. 6. See also the following statutes (references are to Appendix VI): Canada, Sec. 21, No. 4; France, Art. 5 (2), No. 6; Great Britain, Sec. 3 (1), No. 8; Sweden, Art. 7, No. 12; Switzerland, Art. 10, No. 13.
page 114 note 3 See the following treaties (references are to Appendix I): Chile-Colombia, Art. 3, No. 3; Estonia-Latvia, Art. 2, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, Art. 2, No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, Art. 2, No. 6; Brazil-Paraguay, Art. 10 (5), No. 8; Italy-Yugoslavia, Art. 5 (3), No. 10; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5 (3), No. 12; Finland-Sweden, Art. 2 (1), No. 17; Finland-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 21; Estonia-Finland, Art. 3, No. 33; Austria-Estonia, Art. 3, No. 45; Austria-Finland, Art. 3, No. 59; Latvia-Hungary, Art. 3, No. 64; Finland-Italy, Art. 3 (3), No. 66; Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (1), No. 69; Austria-Sweden, Art. 3 (1), No. 72; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 3 (1), No. 78; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 3 (1), No. 80; Poland-Sweden, Art. 3 (a), No. 81; Italy-Panama, Art. 8 (5), No. 82; Brazil-Italy, Art. 5 (5), No. 87; Austria-Latvia, Art. 3 (1), No. 92. See the following draft conventions (references are to Appendix IV): Oxford Resolutions, Art. 14 (a), No. 2; International Law Association, Art. 7, second paragraph, No. 5 (restricted to crime involving the loss of life or grievous bodily harm); International Penal and Prison Commission draft, Art. 6, No. 6. See also the following statutes: Sweden, Art. 7, Appendix VI, No. 12; Switzerland, Art. 10, Appendix VI, No. 13; Finland (statute of Feb. 11, 1922), Art. 4. In this connection reference may be made also to the German extradition statute which provides, in Art. 3 (3), Appendix VI, No. 7, that extradition may be granted for a political offense if the act constitutes a deliberate offense against life, “unless committed in open combat.” See also to the same effect the Finnish statute of 1922, Art. 5.
page 114 note 4 See the following treaties (references are to Appendix I): United States-Siam, Art. 3, No. 7 (the formula used in the treaties of the United States is as follows: “When the offence charged comprises the act either of murder or assassination or of poisoning, either consummated or attempted, the fact that the offense has been committed or attempted against the life of the Sovereign or Head of a Foreign State, or against the life of any member of his family, shall not be deemed sufficient to sustain that such crime or offense was of a political character or was an act connected with crimes or offenses of a pohtical character”); United States-Venezuela, Art. 3, No. 13; United States-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 14; United States-Estonia, Art. 3, No. 15; Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 4 (a), No. 22; United States-Finland, Art. 3, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria, Art. 3, No. 24; United States-Lithuania, Art. 3, No. 26; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 3, No. 27; United States-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 31; France-Poland, Art. 4 (5), No. 32; Austria-Norway, Art. 4, No. 34; Finland-Norway, Art. 4, No. 35; Czechoslovakia-Rumania, Art. 3 (a), No. 36 (enumerates attempts against the life of either the head of State or the “Queen, or the Prince or Princess, heirs to the throne of Rumania” as not being pohtical offenses); Estonia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (a), No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (a). No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (a), No. 39; Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 4, No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 5, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 5, No. 42; Albania-Yugoslavia, Art. 4, No. 44; Greece-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (a), No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (a), No. 51; Portugal-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (a), No. 52; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (4), No. 53; Colombia-Panama, Art. 4 (b), No. 54; Latvia-Norway, Art. 4, No. 55; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 5, No. 56; United States-Poland, Art. 3, No. 57; Belgium-Finland, Art. 5, No. 58; France-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (2), No. 60; Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3, II (1), No. 61; Bulgaria-Greece, Art. 3 (a), No. 62; Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 3 (a), No. 63; Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 4 (a), No. 65; Italy-Venezuela, Art. 5 (4), No. 67; Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (1), No. 69; United States-Austria, Art. 3, No. 71; Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 3 (a), No. 73; Latvia-Spain, Art. 3 (a), No. 74; Germany-Turkey, Art. 4, No. 75, also in Appendix V, No. 3 (provides extradition in mandatory form for attack on the head of the state or of the government); Estonia-Norway, Art. 4, No. 76; Latvia-Denmark, Art. 4, No. 79; Polandweden, Art. 3 (a), No. 81; Italy-Panama, Art. 8 (5), No. 82; United States-Greece, Art. 3, No. 84; Belgium-Poland, Art. 6, No. 85; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3 (la), No. 89; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 4 (a), No. 91. The attentat clause is also contained in the Caracas Convention of 1911, Art. 4, Appendix III, No. 4; in the Bustamante Code of 1928, Art. 357, Appendix III, No. 5; and in the following national extradition statutes (references are to Appendix V): Belgium, Art. 6, No. 2; Germany, Art. 3 (2), No. 7; Sweden, Art. 7, No. 12.
page 115 note 1 See the following treaties (references are to Appendix I): Finland-Denmark, Art. 5, No. 18; Italy-Finland, Art. 3 (3), No. 66; United States-Germany, Art. 4, No. 70; Germany-Turkey, Art. 4, No. 75, also in Appendix V, No. 3; Estonia-Denmark, Art. 5, No. 77. See to the same effect the Oxford Resolutions, Art. 14 (a), Appendix IV, No. 2; the International Law Association draft, Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 5; and the German extradition statute, Art. 3 (3) Appendix VI, No. 7.
page 115 note 2 Colombia-Panama, Art. 4, Appendix I, No. 54 (acts defined as anarchical under the laws of both States); Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. B (II), Appendix I, No. 61 (offenses against human life or property connected with communist movement); Colombia-Nicaragua, Art. 3, Appendix I, No. 63 (same provision as in the Colombia-Panama treaty); Bulgaria-Spain, Art. 3, Appendix I, No. 73 (seditious acts committed individually or collectively with anarchist or social revolutionary aims); Italy-Panama, Art. 8 (5), Appendix I, No. 82 (acts of an anarchist nature under the laws of the two countries). See to the same effect the Pan American Convention of 1902, Art. 2, Appendix III, No. 3 (anarchism by the legislation of both the requesting and requested States); and the International Penal and Prison Commission draft, Art. 6, Appendix IV, No. 6 (crimes directed not against a definite State authority but against all State authority).
page 115 note 3 See, e.g., the French extradition statute, Art. 5 (2), Appendix VI, No. 6; International Penal and Prison Commission draft, Art. 6, Appendix IV, No. 6.
page 115 note 4 See, e.g., Field’s Code, Art. 215, Appendix IV, No. 1; Oxford Resolutions, Art. 14 (b), Appendix IV, No. 2.
page 116 note 1 The following bipartite treaties do not contain the attentat clause (references are to Appendix I): Chile-Colombia, No. 3; Estonia-Latvia, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, No. 6; Brazil-Paraguay, No. 8; Italy-Yugoslavia, No. 10; Germany-Czechoslovakia, No. 11; Italy-Czechoslovakia, No. 12; Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, No. 16; Finland-Sweden, No. 17; Great Britain-Latvia, No. 20; Finland-Latvia, No. 21; Great Britain-Finland, No. 25; Great Britain-Czechoslovakia, No. 28; Great Britain-Estonia, No. 30; Estonia-Finland, No. 33; Austria-Estonia, No. 45; Great Britain-Lithuania, No. 46; Great Britain-Albania, No. 47; Austria-Finland, No. 59; Latvia-Hungary, No. 64; Austria-Sweden, No. 72; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, No. 83; Italy-Brazil, No. 87, also in Appendix V, No. 4; Austria-Belgium, No. 90; Austria-Latvia, No. 92. The clause is not contained in the Pan American Convention of 1902, Appendix III, No. 3; in the Montevideo Convention of 1899, Appendix III, No. 2; in Field's Code, Appendix IV, No. 1; in the Oxford Resolutions, Appendix IV, No. 2; in the International Law Association draft, Appendix IV, No. 5. Many of the national extradition statutes do not include the attentat clause, e.g. (references are to Appendix VI): Argentina, No. 1; Canada, No. 4; France, No. 6; Great Britain, No. 8; Switzerland, No. 13; United States, No. 15.
The following treaties do not contain the attentat clause, but murder or attempt upon the life of the head of state or members of his family is included in the lists of extraditable crimes (references are to Appendix I): Liberia-Monaco, Art. 2 (1), No. 48; Latvia-Netherlands, Art. 2 (1), No. 68; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, Art. 2 (1), No. 86; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 2 (1), No. 95.
page 116 note 2 Deere, , “Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition,” 27 American Journal of International Law (1933), p. 247, at p. 253CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 116 note 3 See report on extradition of M. Brocher to the Institut de Droit International, 4 Annuaire, 217–218.
page 117 note 1 Lammasch, Auslieferungsrecht und Asylrecht (1887), p. 312 ff; Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 112–113, 117; Bourquin, “Crimes et délits contre la sûreté des Etats étrangers,” Recueil des Cours (1927), I, 212–213.
For a review and analysis of the various criticisms levelled against the attentat clause, see Grivaz, Nature et effets du principe de l’asile politique (1895), pp. 246–252; Bernard, Traité de l’Extradition (2nd ed., 1890), Vol. II, pp. 297–298; Teichmann, , “Les délits politiques, le régicide et l’extradition,” 11 Revue du droit international et de la législation comparée (1879), p. 475, at p. 501 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 117 note 2 In re Meunier [1894], 2 Queen’s Bench, 415. The fugitive, charged with wilfully causing two explosions in France, was arrested upon the request of the French Government. Extradition was opposed on the ground, inter alia, that the act was of a political character. Application for habeas corpus was refused, the court saying (per Cave, J.): “It appears to me that, in order to constitute an offence of a political character, there must be two or more parties in the State, each seeking to impose the Government of their own choice on the other, and that, if the offence is committed by one side or the other in pursuance of the object, it is a political offence, otherwise not. In the present case there are not two parties in the State, each seeking to impose the Government of their own choice on the other; for the party with whom the accused is identified by the evidence, … namely, the party of anarchy, is the enemy of all Governments. Their efforts are directed primarily against the general body of citizens. They may, secondarily and incidentally, commit offences against some particular Government; but anarchist offences are mainly directed against private citizens. … I am of opinion that the crime charged was not a political offence within the meaning of the Extradition Act.”
page 117 note 3 See decisions of the Swiss Tribunal Fédéral, Sept. 11, 1891, In re Malatesta, 17 Recueil Officiel des Arrêts, 456; March 30, 1901, In re Jaffei, Semaine Judiciaire, 1901, p. 721.
page 118 note 1 For a review and analysis of the various views on these tests, see Beauchet, Traité de l’Extradition (1899), §§398–408, pp. 226–234.
page 118 note 2 62 Federal Reporter (D. C, N. D. Cal., 1894), 972.
page 118 note 3 For comments on the Ezeta case, see: “The Extradition Proceedings in the Case of Ezeta,” 28 American Law Review (1894), pp. 784, 879; Moore, J. B., “The Case of the Salvadorean Refugees,” 29 American Law Review (1895), p. 1 Google Scholar.
page 118 note 4 Such provisions are contained in the following treaties (references are to Appendix I): United States-Siam, Art. 3, No. 7; United States-Venezuela, Art. 3, No. 13; United States-Latvia, Art. 3, No. 14; United States-Estonia, Art. 3, No. 15; Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 5, No. 22; United States-Finland, Art. 3, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria, Art. 3, No. 24; United States-Lithuania, Art. 3, No. 26; Hungary-Rumania, Art. 3, No. 27; United States-Czechoslovakia, Art. 3, No. 31; Belgium-Paraguay, Art. 4, No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, Art. 5, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, Art. 5, No. 42; Liberia-Monaco, Art. 3, No. 48; Belgium-Lithuania, Art. 5, No. 56; Belgium-Finland, Art. 5, No. 58; Italy-Venezuela, Art. 7, No. 67; United States-Austria, Art. 3, No. 71; United States-Greece, Art. 3, No. 84; Brazil-Italy, Art. 5 (5), No. 87; Austria-Belgium, Art. 3, No. 90; Finland-Netherlands, Art. 8, No. 95. To the same effect see the Caracas Convention of 1911, Art. 4, Appendix III, No. 4; the International Penal and Prison Commission draft, Art. 6, Appendix IV, No. 6; and the extradition statutes of Belgium, Art. 6, Appendix VI, No. 2; and of Switzerland, Ait. 10, Appendix VI, No. 13.
page 120 note 1 The following bipartite treaties make no mention of military offenses (references are to Appendix I): Chile-Colombia, No. 3; Estonia-Latvia, No. 4; Estonia-Lithuania, No. 5; Latvia-Lithuania, No. 6; United States-Siam, No. 7; United States-Venezuela, No. 13; United States-Latvia, No. 14; United States-Estonia, No. 15; Switzerland-Uruguay, No. 19; Great Britain-Latvia, No. 20; Finland-Latvia, No. 21: United States-Finland, No. 23; United States-Bulgaria, No. 24; Great Britain-Finland, No. 25; United States-Lithuania, No. 26; Hungary-Rumania, No. 27; Great Britain-Czechoslovakia, No. 28; France-Latvia, No. 29; Great Britain-Estonia, No. 30; United States-Czechoslovakia, No. 31; France-Poland, No. 32; Estonia-Finland, No. 33; Finland-Norway, No. 35; Belgium-Paraguay, No. 40; Belgium-Estonia, No. 41; Belgium-Latvia, No. 42; France-San Marino, No. 43; Austria-Estonia, No. 45; Great Britain-Lithuania, No. 46; Great Britain-Albania, No. 47; Liberia-Monaco, No. 48; Belgium-Czechoslovakia, No. 53; Latvia-Norway, No. 55; Belgium-Lithuania, No. 56: United Stales-Poland, No. 57; Belgium-Finland, No. 58; Austria-Finland, No. 59; France-Czechoslovakia, No. 60; Colombia-Nicaragua, No. 63 Latvia-Hungary, No. 64; Latvia-Netherlands, No. 68; United States-Germany, No. 70; United States-Austria, No. 71; Estonia-Norway, No. 76; Latvia-Denmark, No. 79; United States-Greece, No. 84; Belgium-Poland, No. 85; Netherlands-Czechoslovakia, No. 86; Austria-Belgium, No. 90; Austria-Latvia, No. 92; Great Britain-Iraq, No. 93; Finland-Netherlands, No. 95.
page 120 note 2 Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (3), Appendix I, No. 11; Germany-Turkey, Art. 5 (1), Appendix I, No. 75.
page 120 note 3 Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 3 (f), Appendix III, No. 6.
page 120 note 4 Unless otherwise indicated, the provision is contained in Art. 3 (b); (references are to Appendix I): Brazil-Paraguay, Art. 10 (5), No. 8 (no extradition when “the offense is of a military or political character”); Bulgaria-Rumania, Art. 4 (b), No. 22; Rumania-Czechoslovakia, No. 36; Estonia-Czechoslovakia, No. 37; Latvia-Czechoslovakia, No. 38; Bulgaria-Czechoslovakia, No. 39; Greece-Czechoslovakia, No. 50; Spain-Czechoslovakia, No. 51 (“for offenses of a purely military character”); Portugal-Czechoslovakia, No. 52; Bulgaria-Greece, No. 62; Bulgaria-Spain, No. 73; Latvia-Spain, No. 74; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, No. 83; Denmark-Czechoslovakia, No. 89. See also the same phraseology used: in the Montevideo Convention of 1933, Art. 3 (f), Appendix III, No. 6; in the Rio de Janeiro draft of 1912, Art. 4 (b), Appendix IV, No. 3. The Swiss Extradition statute simply provides for non-extradition “for military offenses,” Art. 11, Appendix VI, No. 13. The Oxford Resolutions, Art. 16, Appendix IV, No. 2, provide that extradition ought not apply (ne doit pas appliquer) to “purely military offenses”.
page 121 note 1 E.g. (references are to Appendix I): Italy-Yugoslavia, Art. 5 (2), No. 10; Germany-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (3), No. 11; Italy-Czechoslovakia, Art. 5 (2), No. 12; Bulgaria-Yugoslavia, Art. 4 (2), No. 16; Albania-Yugoslavia, Art. 4 (2), No. 44 (omits “purely”); Hungary-Yugoslavia, Art. 3, par. II (2), No. 61 (omits “purely”); Finland-Italy, Art. 3 (2), No. 66; Italy-Venezuela, Art. 5 (3), No. 67; Turkey-Czechoslovakia, Art. 4 (2), No. 69; Germany-Turkey, Art. 5 (1), No. 75; Italy-Panama, Art. 8 (4), No. 82; Italy-Brazil, Art. 5 (3), No. 87. See to the same effect the International Penal and Prison Commission draft, Art. 7, Appendix IV, No. 6: No extradition for “acts consisting solely of the contravention of militar duties”. The German Extradition statute precludes extradition “if the act under German law is punishable only under the Military Penal Law”. Art. 2 (2), Appendix VI, No. 7.
page 121 note 2 Bulgaria-Turkey, Art. 4 (b), Appendix I, No. 65; Iraq-Turkey, Art. 4 (b), Appendix I, No. 91.
page 121 note 3 E.g. (references are to Appendix I): Finland-Sweden, Art. 1, No. 17; Denmark-Finland, Art. 2, No. 18; Austria-Norway, Art. 2, No. 34 (with the proviso that extradition is granted only on condition that the requesting State will not prosecute the case as a military offense); Austria-Sweden, Art. 2, par. 2 (4), No. 72; Estonia-Denmark, Art. 2, No. 77; Latvia-Sweden, Art. 2 (4), No. 78; Estonia-Sweden, Art. 2 (II), No. 80; Poland-Sweden, Art. 1, No. 81. See to the same effect the extradition laws of: France, Art. 4, Appendix VI, No. 6 (extradition may be granted for offenses committed by soldiers and sailors “when they are punished under the French law as common offenses”); Sweden, Art. 6, Appendix VI, No. 12; Finland, statute of Feb. 11,1922, Art. 5; Norway, Statute of June 13,1918, Art. 2.
page 121 note 4 Art. 4 (b), Appendix I, No. 54.
page 121 note 5 See (references are to Appendix IV): Field’s Code, Art. 215 (3), No. 1, which provides non-extradition only in case of “desertions from or evasions of, military or naval service.” The Oxford Resolution, Art. 16, No. 2, provides non-extradition for desertion from the army or navy, in addition to for “purely military offenses”. The Rio de Janeiro draft of 1912, Art. 4 (b), par. 3, No. 3, makes surrender of deserters from the army or navy optional, though under Art. 4 (b) extradition for “purely military offenses” is mandatorily precluded.
page 121 note 6 This subject seldom receives more than cursory treatment from text-writers. Judge Moore in his Extradition (1891), I, §§407–412, pp. 611–623, discusses desertion generally, but lays emphasis on desertion of seamen and treats desertion as a military offense only incidentally. Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 94–100, also treats the subject incidentally under the title of desertion. For a somewhat detailed discussion, see Beauchet, Traité de l’Extradition (1899), §§454–473, pp. 268–278.
page 122 note 1 Art. 17 (3) (c) provides for judicial determination of the question whether the person claimed is wanted for a military offense or to be prosecuted or punished for such offense.
page 122 note 2 See, for the United States, Manual for Courts-Martial, Art. 35, and Articles of War, Arts. 92–96.