Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T02:43:46.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double Criminality in Extradition Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Lech Gardocki
Lech Gardocki
Affiliation:
Professor, Faculty of Law, Warsaw University.
Get access

Extract

1. The principle of double criminality is traditionally bound with institutions of international criminal law. Double criminality is a requirement not only with extradition, but also with the transfer of criminal proceedings and with execution of foreign sentences. International criminal law employs a range of “double conditions”, the common denominator of which is the requirement that two legal systems share a certain set of values or legal prescriptions. In addition to double criminality, international law uses such terms as “double punishability”, the “double possibility of criminal proceedings” and the “double possibility of the execution of penal judgment”. Among these concepts, double criminality is the most important and universal condition applied in the basic institutions of international criminal law, such as extradition, the transfer of proceedings, and the execution of foreign penal judgments.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 27 , Issue 1-2 , Winter–Spring 1993 , pp. 288 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1993

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 Plachta, M., “The Role of Double Criminality in International Cooperation in Penal Matters” in Jareborg, N., ed., Double Criminality. Studies in International Criminal Law (Uppsala, 1989) 111.Google Scholar

2 Swart, B., “Human Rights and the Abolition of Traditional Principles” in Eser, A. and Lagodny, O., eds., Principles and Procedures for a New Transnational Criminal Law (Freiburg, 1992) 16.Google Scholar

3 See Lagodny, in Uhlig, S., Schonburg, W. and Lagodny, O., Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (IRG) (München, 1992) 41.Google Scholar

4 Swart, supra n. 2, at 17.

5 See Plachta, supra n. 1, at 107.

6 P. O. Träskman, “Should We Take the Condition of Double Criminality Seriously?” in N. Jareborg, ed., supra n. 1.

7 Feller, S. Z., “The Significance of the Requirement of Double Criminality in the Law of Extradition” (1975) 10 Is. L. R. 70.Google Scholar

8 See Lomboie, C., Droit pénal international (Paris, 1971) 510.Google Scholar

9 Schultz, H., “Rapport general provisoir sur la question IV pour le X Congres International de Droit Pénal” (1968) 3–4 Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 799.Google Scholar

10 The provision reads as follows:

Fiscal offences:

1) For offences in connection with taxes, duties, customs and exchange extradition shall take place between Contracting Parties in accordance with the provisions of the Convention if the offence under the law of the requested Party, corresponds to an offence of the same nature.

2) Extradition may not be refused on the ground that the law of the requested Party does not impose the same kind of tax or duly or does not contain a tax, duty, customs or exchange regulation of the same kind as the law of the requesting Party”.

11 See Explanatory Report on the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition (Strasbourg, 1978) 8.

12 See Lagodny, supra n. 3, at 42.

13 Jescheck, H. H., “Die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen in Europa” (1954) 66 ZStW 531–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Swart, supra n. 2, at 16.

15 Plachta, supra n. 1, at 133.

16 Markees, C., “Rapport suisse. Les problemes actuels de l'extradition” (1968) 3–4 Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 747–757.Google Scholar

17 Feller, supra n. 7, at 80.

18 Träskman, supra n. 6, at 154.

19 Swart, supra n. 2, at 17.