Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:32:19.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Extradition Fails, Is Abduction the Solution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Michael H. Cardozo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 1961 , pp. 127 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 U. S. v. Artukovic, 170 F. Supp. 383 (S.D. Cal., Cent. Div., 1959).

2 The Eichmann story was covered in The New York Times between May 24 and August 3, 1960. See also Keesing’s Contemporary Archives (Weekly Digest of World Events) (Bristol), Vol. XII, June 25-July 2, 1960, pp. 17489-17491.

3 This was the U. S. position in the dispute with Mexico over Martinez. See note 41 below; 2 Foreign Relations (1906) 1121-1122.

4 None of the recognized principles of jurisdiction fit the case exactly. Cf. Briggs, The Law of Nations 575-579 (2nd ed., 1952) ; Harvard Research in International Law, 29 A.J.I.L. Supp. 435 (1935); American Law Institute, The Foreign Relations Law of the United States—A Restatement, Tentative Draft No. 2, Ch. 2 (1958).

5 See note 39 below.

6 The New York Times, Oct. 23, 1934, p. 6, Col. 6.

7 Mirkovich, , “Jugoslavia’s Choice,” 20 Foreign Affairs 131, 149-150 (1941)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 23 Encyclopaedia Britannica 922 (1947).

9 Reeord on Appeal, pp. 182-183, Ivancevic v. Artukovie, 211 F. 2d 565 (9th Cir. 1954), eert. den., 348 U. S. 818 (1954).

10 The charges are described in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Karadzole v. Artukovie, No. 462, Oct. Term, 1957, V. S. Supreme Court, 355 U. S. 393 (1958). See also Karadzole v. Artukovie, 247 F.2d 198, 200-201 (9th Cir. 1957).

11 These facts are from the Record on Appeal, note 9 above.

12 Artukovie v. Boyle, 107 F.Supp. 11, 33 (S.D. Cal., CD. 1952).

13 Ibid, at 24.

14 Cf. Dickinson, “The Law of Nations as National Law—Political Questions, “104 U. Pa. Law Rev. 451, 478-479 (1956), with M. H. Cardozo, “Sovereign Immunity—The Plaintiff Deserves a Day in Court,” 67 Harvard Law Rev. 608, 614 (1954). See also International Law in National Courts, Record of Proceedings of Third Summer Conference on International Law (Cornell Law School, 1960).

15 islvancevic v. Artukovic, 211 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1954).

16 Ibid. at 574. Cf. Argento v. North, 131 F.Supp. 538, 542 (N.D. Ohio, 1955), 241 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1957).

17 348 U. S. 818, 889 (1954)

18 32 Stat. 1890 (1903).

19 See, e.g., Case of Pa velie and Kvaternik, 1933-34 Annual Digest 372 (1940); Philonenko, “Le refus d’extradition des terroristes croates,” 61 Journal du Droit International 1157 (1934). Many modem extradition treaties except assassination of a chief of state, even if politically motivated, from the exemption from extradition for political crimes. Hyde, International Law (2d ed., 1945) § 317 and examples there cited.

20 See García-Mora, , “The Present Status of Political Offenses in Law of Extradition and Asylum,” 14 U. of Pittsburgh Law Rev. 371 (1953)Google Scholar.

21 See Report by the President to the Congress for the year 1947 on Activities of the United Nations 80-81 (Dept. of State Pub. 3024 (1948)).

22 Artukovic v. Boyle, 140 F. Supp. 245 (S.D. Cal., CD. 1956).

23 Karadzole v. Artukovic, 247 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1957).

24 Karadzole v. Artukovic, 355 U. S. 393 (1958).

25 18 U.S.C. §3184 (1952), 62 Stat. 822 (1949).

26 Memorandum for the United States in Karadzole v. Artukovic, No. 462, Oct. Term, 1957, U. S. Supreme Court, 355 U. S. 393 (1958).

27 18 U.S.C. § 3186 (1952), 62 Stat. 824 (1949).

28 Record on Appeal, note 9 above, at 236-241.

29 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 7-10 (1951). For an older view of “political offenses,” see Deere, , “Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition,” 27 A.J.I.L. 247 (1933)Google Scholar.

30 Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944); Lemkin, “Genocide as a Crime under International Law,” 41 A.J.I.L. 145 (1947).

31 30 Dept. of State Bulletin 882-884 (1954), and 28 ibid. 591-595 (1953).

32 Hearings on the Genocide Convention, Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950).

33 Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519 (1952). See 2 Hyde, International Law $ 321, pp. 1031-1032 (2d ed., 1945).

34 See Travers, Le Droit Pénal International 158-159 (Paris, 1921), cited in Preuss, “Settlement of the Jacob Kidnaping Case (Switzerland-Germany),” 30 A.J.I.L. 123, 124, note 6 (1936). Cf. State v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 118 (1835), where the identity of the abductors is not clear, but the conviction of the abducted fugitive was sustained.

35 1 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 624 (1940).

36 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436 (1886). The interesting story behind the Ker case is told in Fairman, “Ker v. Illinois Revisited,” 47 A.J.I.L. 678 (1953), and Montt and Fairman, “Admiral Patrick Lynch,” 48 A.J.I.L. 294-296 (1954). The result of the case is criticized in Dickinson, “Jurisdiction Following Seizure or Arrest in Violation of International Law,” 28 A.J.I.L. 231, 237-239 (1934).

37 U. S. v. Sobell, 142 F. Supp. 515 (S. D. N. Y., 1956); aff’d., 244 F. 2d 520 (2d Cir., 1957), cert, den., 355 U. S. 873; rehearing den., 355 U. S. 920 (1958).

38 Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d 921 (1st Cir., 1948).

39 In re Lo Dolce, 106 F. Supp. 455 (W.D.N.Y., 1952). See also U. S. v. leardi, 140 F. Supp. 383 (D. C, 1956).

40 France and Great Britain : The Savarkar Case, Hague Permanent Court of Arbitration (1911), Scott, The Hague Court Reports 275 (1916); reprinted in 5 A.J.I.L. 520 (1911), and Fenwick, Cases on International Law 420 (2d ed., 1951).

41 1906 U. S. Foreign Relations 1121-1122. See also Ex parte Lopez, 6 F. Supp. 342 (S. D. Tex., 1934).

42 American and Panamanian General Claims Arbitration, Report of Bert L. Hunt, U. S. Agent, Dept. of State Arbitration Series, No. 6 (1934), pp. 733-749.

43 3 Moore, International Law Digest 820-854 (1906).

44 Eisler v. U. S., 338 U. S. 189 (1949). See also Fineh, “The Eisler Extradition Case,” 43 A.J.I.L. 487 (1949), and Dayton, Note, 35 Cornell Law Q. 424 (1950). Cf. Case of Blackmer, Hudson, Cases on International Law 514 (3rd ed., 1951).

45 2 Moore, International Law Digest 633 (1906).

46 Case of William H. Adsetts, 1907, 4 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 14-15 (Washington, 1942).

47 1 Moore, A Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition 33-35 (1891).

48 2 U.S. Foreign Relations (1934) 576-583 and 939.