Skip to main content

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.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Access

The Value of International Law in Combating Transnational Organized Crime in the Asia-Pacific

  • Tom OBOKATA (a1)
Abstract

This paper explores the value of international law in combating transnational organized crime in the Asia-Pacific, with particular reference to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. It begins by highlighting the definitions of organized crime under national and international law. It then analyzes the extent to which states in the Asia-Pacific have implemented the Convention, focusing on harmonization of national criminal laws and procedures, mutual recognition of law enforcement decisions and measures, as well as provision of technical assistance. The paper also touches upon the protection of the human rights of victims and perpetrators of organized crime. The main conclusion reached is that, although the implementation of international instruments pertinent to transnational organized crime has not been an easy task in the Asia-Pacific, they are slowly but surely making a difference on the ground. Therefore, their value should not be dismissed completely.

  • View HTML
      • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Value of International Law in Combating Transnational Organized Crime in the Asia-Pacific
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Value of International Law in Combating Transnational Organized Crime in the Asia-Pacific
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Value of International Law in Combating Transnational Organized Crime in the Asia-Pacific
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
© Asian Journal of International Law 2015 
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Professor of International Law and Human Rights, School of Law, Keele University, United Kingdom.

Footnotes
References
Hide All

1. Acknowledging that there is no precise definition of “Asia-Pacific”, this paper examines state practice in East Asia (e.g. China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea), South Asia (e.g. India, Nepal, and Pakistan), Southeast Asia (e.g. Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand), and Oceania (e.g. Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand).

2. United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Transnational Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific: A Threat Assessment (Vienna: UNODC, 2013) at Executive Summary.

3. SCHLOENHARDT, Andreas, “The Illegal Trade in Timber and Timber Products in the Asia-Pacific”, Australian Institute of Criminology, Research and Policy Series No. 89, 2008 .

4. UNODC, supra note 2 at 1.

5. KNEEBONE, Susan and DEBELJAK, Julie, Transnational Crime and Human Rights: Responses to Human Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Subregion (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012).

6. ECPAT International, Combating Child Sex Tourism (Bangkok: ECPAT International, 2008); COTTER, Kelly, “Combating Child Sex Tourism in Southeast Asia” (2009) 37 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 493 ; JOHNSON, Afrooz K., “International Child Sex Tourism: Enhancing the Legal Response in South-East Asia” (2011) 19 International Journal of Children’s Rights 55 ; and CURLEY, Melissa, “Combating Child Sex Tourism in South-East Asia: Law Enforcement Co-operation and Civil Society Partnership” (2014) 41 Journal of Law and Society 283 .

7. UNODC, supra note 2 at 21.

8. Ibid., at 56, 66, 67. See also UNODC, Patterns and Trends of Amphetamine-Type Stimulants and Other Drugs: Challenges for Asia and the Pacific (Vienna: UNODC, 2013) at 11, 79, 92; CHIN, Koh-Lin and GODSON, Roy, “Organized Crime and the Political-Criminal Nexus in China” (2006) 9 Trends in Organized Crime 5 .

9. They are Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Kiribati, Malaysia, the Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Singapore, the Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

10. They include China, Cambodia, Japan, Indonesia, Macau, Mongolia, Timor-Leste, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

11. States such as Brunei, Indonesia, and Pakistan are also influenced by the Islamic tradition, and local customary laws are regarded as important in the South Pacific, such as the Cook Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, and Tonga. See ORUCU, Esin, “What is a Mixed Legal System: Exclusion or Expansion?” (2008) 12 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 1 ; CARE, Jennifer C., “Cultures in Conflict: The Role of Common Law in the South Pacific” (2002) 6 Journal of South Pacific Law 1 .

12. They include Nepal, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka. Orucu, supra note 11 at 16; URSCHELER, L. Heckendorn, “Innovation in a Hybrid System: The Example of Nepal” (2012) 15 Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal , online: <http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/>.

13. 16 November 2000, 2225 U.N.T.S. 209 (entered into force 29 September 2003) [UNTOC].

14. Status of Ratification, online: United Nations Treaty Collection <https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=ind&mtdsg_no=xviii-12&chapter=18&lang=en>.

15. Ibid.

16. Assistance in Harmonising National Legislation with the United Nations Convention against Organized Crime and Protocol Thereto: Discussion Paper by the Secretariat, Working Group on Technical Assistance, CTOC/COP/WG.2/2013/4, at para. 6.

17. Art. 2(a).

18. CRESSEY, Donald, Theft of the Nation (New York: Harper and Row, 1969); COHEN, A.K., “The Concepts of Criminal Organisation” (1977) 17 British Journal of Criminology 97 ; FIJNAUT, Cyrille, “Organized Crime: A Comparison Between the United States of America and Western Europe” (1990) 30 British Journal of Criminology 321 ; PAOLI, Letizia and FIJNAUT, Cyrille, eds., Organized Crime in Europe: Concepts, Patterns and Control Policies in the European Union and Beyond (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006).

19. WOODIWISS, Michael, “Transnational Organized Crime: The Global Reach of an American Concept” in Adam EDWARDS and Peter GILL, eds., Transnational Organized Crime: Perspectives on Global Security (London: Routledge, 2003), at 15 .

20. WOODIWISS, Michael, “Transnational Organized Crime: The Strange Career of an American Concept” in Margaret BEARE, ed., Critical Reflections on Transnational Organized Crime, Money Laundering and Corruption (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), at 5 .

21. Paoli, and Fijnaut, , supra note 18 at 24 .

22. KAPLAN, David and DUBRO, Alec, Yakuza: Japan’s Criminal Underworld (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003) at 115–116 .

23. UNODC, Travaux Préparatoires of the Negotiation for the Elaboration of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime the Protocols Thereto (New York: United Nations, 2006), 7–18.

24. MCILLWAIN, Jeffrey S., “Organized Crime: A Social Network Approach” (1999) 32 Crime, Law and Social Change 301, at 303 .

25. WILLIAMS, Phil and GODSON, Roy, “Anticipating Organized and Transnational Crime” (2002) 37 Crime, Law and Social Change 311 at 332 .

26. BRUINSMA, Gerben and BERNASCO, Wim, “Criminal Groups and Transnational Illegal Markets” (2004) 41 Crime, Law and Social Change 79 at 79 .

27. PAOLI, Letizia, “The Paradoxes of Organized Crime” (2002) 37 Crime, Law and Social Change 51 at 68 .

28. WILLIAMS, Phil, “Organising Transnational Crime: Networks, Markets and Hierarchy” in Phil WILLIAMS and Dimitri VLASSIS, eds., Combating Transnational Crime: Concepts, Activities and Responses (London: Frank Cass, 2001), at 77 ; ZHANG, Sheldon and CHIN, Koh-Lin, Characteristics of Chinese Human Smugglers: A Cross-National Study (Washington, DC: US Department of State, 2003); CHU, Yiu-Kong, The Triads as Business (London: Routledge, 2008); ZHANG, Sheldon and CHIN, Koh-Lin, “Snakeheads, Mules and Protective Umbrellas: A Review of Current Research on Chinese Organized Crime” (2008) 50 Crime, Law and Social Change 177 .

29. OBOKATA, Tom, Transnational Organized Crime in International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010) at 22 .

30. SCHLOENHARDT, Andreas, “Organized Crime and the Business of Migrant Trafficking: An Economic Analysis” (1999) 32 Crime, Law and Social Change 203 ; Cressey, supra note 18 at 72.

31. s. 98A.

32. Counter-Terrorism and Organized Crime Act 2013 and Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime Act 2009, respectively.

33. Criminal Code Act 1995 as amended, s. 390.4.

34. Act No. 574, s. 130U.

35. On the topic of proportionality in punishment, see BEDAU, Hugo A., “Retribution and the Theory of Punishment” (1978) 75 Journal of Philosophy 601 ; HIRSCH, Andrew VON, “Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment: From ‘Why Punish?’ to ‘How Much?’”(1990) 1 Criminal Law Forum 259 ; PARR, Stephen T., “Symmetric Proportionality: A New Perspective on the Cruel and Unusual Punishment” (2000) 68 Tennessee Law Review 41 ; RISTROPH, Alice, “Proportionality as a Principle of Limited Government” (2005) 55 Duke Law Journal 263 ; FISH, Morris J., “An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment” (2008) 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 57 ; FLORIO, Ryan, “The Capital Punishment Fits the Crime: A Comparative Analysis of the Death Penalty and Proportionality in the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China” (2008) University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review 43 ; BAKER, Dennis J. and ZAO, Lucy, “Responsibility Links, Fair Labelling and Proportionality in China: Comparing China’s Criminal Law Theory and Doctrine” (2009) UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 274 .

36. Criminal Act 1953 as amended, art. 289.

37. Criminal Code 2009, arts. 341, 342.

38. Penal Code 1907 (Act No. 45) as amended, art. 197.

39. Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime Act 2013, s. 67.

40. On the topic of harmonization in the EU legal order, see AMBOS, Kai, “Is the Development of a Common Substantive Criminal Law for Europe Possible?” (2005) 12 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 173 ; WEYEMBERGH, Anne, “The Functions of Approximation of Penal Legislation within the European Union” (2005) 12 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 149 ; WEYEMBERGH, Anne, “Approximation of Criminal Laws, the Constitutional Treaty and the Hague Programme” (2005) 42 Common Market Law Review 1567 ; OBOKATA, Tom, “Key EU Principles to Combat Transnational Organized Crime” (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 801 ; CALDERONI, Francesco, Organized Crime Legislation in the European Union (Heidelberg: Springer, 2010).

41. [2012] OJ C 326/47 (entered into force 1 December 2009) arts. 82, 83.

42. [2011] OJ L 101/1.

43. 15 November 2000, 2237 U.N.T.S. 319 (entered into force 25 December 2003).

44. Art. 258.

45. Mid-Term Report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy Towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings, European Commission, COM (2014) 635 final.

46. It is worth noting here that the European Union is the only regional organization which signed the UNTOC.

47. See, for instance, the European Commission’s Report, supra note 45, which talks about infringement actions brought against some states for non-implementation; and Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Based on Article 10 of the Council Framework Decision of 19 July 2002 on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings, European Commission, COM (2006) 187 final.

48. Working Group on Technical Assistance, supra note 16 at para. 11.

49. Penal Code 2004 as amended in 2011, s. 154.

50. Penal Code as amended in 2013, s. 370.

51. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2007.

52. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Law 2005.

53. Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2012.

54. Prevention of Human Trafficking Act 2014.

55. Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2008.

56. Obokata, supra note 40.

57. UNODC, Legislative Guides for the Implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and Protocols Thereto (Vienna: UNODC, 2004) at 21.

58. SCHLOENHARDT, Andreas, “Fighting Organized Crime in the Asia-Pacific Region: New Weapons, Lost Wards”, Asian Law Institute, Working Paper Series No. 22, 2001 at 3–5 .

59. Criminal Code Act 1995 as amended, s. 11.5(1).

60. Crimes Act 1961 as amended, s. 310.

61. Penal Code 2008 (Revised Edition), s. 120A.

62. Criminal Code 1974 as amended, ss. 515–17.

63. Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China 1979 as amended, art. 294.

64. Crimes Act 2013, s. 146.

65. Criminal Code 1954 as amended, s. 154.

66. Counter-Terrorism and Organized Crime Act 2013, s. 66.

67. Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime Act 2009, s. 66.

68. For further discussions, see Criminalization of Participation in an Organized Criminal Group: Background Paper by the Secretariat, Working Group on Technical Assistance, CTOC/COP/WG.2/2014/2.

69. SCHLOENHARDT, Andreas, Palermo in the Pacific: Organized Crime Offences in the Asia Pacific Region (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Punishers, 2010) at 402 .

70. Information Submitted by States in Their Responses to the Checklist/Questionnaire on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime for the First Reporting Cycle, CTOC/COP/2008/CRP.7.

71. UNTOC, art. 18.

72. Art. 13.

73. Art. 19.

74. Art. 21.

75. Art. 27.

76. Obokata, supra note 29 at 64.

77. Asian Development Bank (ABD) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Mutual Legal Assistance, Extradition and Recovery of Proceeds of Corruption in Asia and the Pacific (Mandaluyong City/Paris: ADB/OECD, 2007) at 73.

78. Bilateral and Multilateral Co-operation Arrangements and the Co-ordinating Functions of the Central Authorities, Working Group on International Cooperation, CTOC/COP/WG.3/2014/2 at para. 19.

79. 3 August 2008, online: SAARC: <http://saarc-sec.org/SAARC-Conventions/63/>.

80. 29 November 2004, online: ASEAN <http://agreement.asean.org/home/index/2.html>.

81. They were Cambodia, China, and the Philippines. Information Submitted by States, supra note 70.

82. Ibid. They were Australia, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Thailand.

83. Working Group on International Cooperation, supra note 78 at paras. 14, 15.

84. ADB and OECD, supra note 77 at 39.

85. Ibid., 38.

86. BROADHURST, Roderic and FARRELLY, Nicholas, “Organized Crime Control in Asia: Experiences from India, China, and the Golden Triangle” in Letizia PAOLI, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Organized Crime (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), at 649 .

87. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan’s Official Development Assistance White Paper 2013 (Tokyo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013) at 91 .

88. US Department of State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume II—Money Laundering and Financial Crimes (Washington, DC: US Department of State, 2015) at 6 .

89. Working Group on Technical Assistance, supra note 16 at para. 29.

91. Provision of Technical Assistance to States in the Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto: Report of the Secretariat, CTOC/COP/2014/11 at para. 10.

92. Activities of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to Promote the Implementation of the Provisions on International Cooperation in the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime: Report of the Secretariat, CTOC/COP/2014/10 at para. 34.

93. 20 December 1997. The ASEAN Secretariat, ASEAN Documents on Combating Transnational Crime and Terrorism (Jakarta: ASEAN, 2007) at 9.

94. 23 June 1999, ibid., at 23.

95. 20 December 1988, 1582 U.N.T.S. 95 (entered into force 11 November 1990), art. 5.

96. Arts. 6, 7.

97. 16 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) [ICCPR].

98. Art. 2.

99. Resolution 20/1: Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children: Access to Effective Remedies for Trafficked Persons and Their Right to an Effective Remedy for Human Rights Violations, A/HRC/20/L1 (2012).

100. 28 June 1930, 39 U.N.T.S. 55 (entered into force 1 May 1932).

101. 18 December 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 September 1981).

102. 20 November 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990).

103. 25 May 2000, 2171 U.N.T.S. 227 (entered into force 18 January 2002).

104. See, for instance, the landmark case of Velasquez Rodriquz v. Honduras, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).

105. See OBOKATA, Tom, Trafficking of Human Beings from a Human Rights Perspective: Towards a Holistic Approach (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006).

106. The ICCPR, arts. 7, 9, 10.

107. General Comment No. 16 (Right to Privacy) (1988), HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at para. 8.

108. See, for instance, Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, CCPR/C/WG/44/D/488/1992 at para. 8.3; General Comment No. 31 (The Nature of the General Legal Obligation) (2004), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 at para. 6.

109. The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, A/HRC/27/37 (2014).

110. Resolution 28: Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, A/HRC/28/L.24 (2015).

111. See, for instance, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal (1998), Application No. 25829/94; Ludi v. Switzerland (1992), Application No. 12433/86; Khudobin v. Russia (2006), Application No. 59696/00.

112. Schenk v. Switzerland (1988), Application No. 10862/84; Khan v. United Kingdom (2000), Application No. 35394/97.

113. Criminal Procedural Law 1979 as amended in 2012, art. 148.

114. Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance 2006.

115. Communications Interception Law 1999.

116. Privacy International, Right to Privacy in Myanmar (London: Privacy International, 2015) at 5–6.

117. Search and Surveillance Act 2012.

118. Protection of Private Communications Act 1973.

119. Protection of Communications Secrets Act 2002.

120. Communications Protection and Surveillance Act 1999 as amended.

121. Telegraph and Telephone Act 1934.

122. Police Act 2010.

123. ABD and OSCE, The Criminalisation of Corruption in Asia and the Pacific (Mandaluyong City/Paris: ADB/OECD, 2008) at 166 and 185.

124. Ibid., at 107, 474–5, 515.

125. Ridgeway (1995) 184 CLR 19.

126. R.K. Anand v. Registrar of the Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106.

127. Law Society of Singapore v. Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2008] 2 SLR 239; Mohamed Emran bin Mohamed Ali v. Public Prosecutor [2008] 4 SLR 411.

128. JACKSON, John D. and SUMMERS, Sarah J., The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) at 153 .

129. This is the case for Australia and India.

130. The Supreme Court Document 324 (2008).

131. 10 December 1948, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), art. 17.

132. 16 December 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976).

133. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 27 June 1981, 1520 U.N.T.S. 217 (entered into force 21 October 1986), art. 14.

134. American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 143 (entered into force 18 July 1978), art. 21.

135. Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, 20 March 1952, E.T.S. No. 9 (entered into force 18 May 1954), art. 1.

136. Art. 1 of the Protocol 1 to the ECHR states: “No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law; 2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” Similar language can be found in art. 21 of the ACHR and art. 14 of the African Charter.

137. Air Canada v. United Kingdom (1995), Application No 18465/91.

138. Phillips v. United Kingdom (2001), Application No.41087/98 at para. 51.

139. See, for instance, Adzhigovich v. Russia (2009), Application No. 23202/05, where the European Court held that Russia violated the right to property as there was no clear legal basis for confiscation.

140. SAMBEI, Arvinder, Civil Forfeiture (Confiscation in Rem): Explanatory and Impact Study (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2012) at 5 .

141. Art. 12(9).

142. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

143. Criminal Asset Recovery Order 2012.

144. Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

145. Anti-Money Laundering Act 2001.

146. LEONG, Angela V.M., The Disruption of International Organized Crime (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007) at 77 .

147. Sambei, supra note 140 at 9.

148. See Engel v. the Netherlands (1976), Application Nos. 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72, and 5370/72; Walsh v. United Kingdom (2000), Application No. 33744/96.

149. Phillips v. United Kingdom, supra note 138 at paras. 43–7.

150. Narcotics Control Act 1990, s. 19.

151. Misuse of Drugs Act 1987 as amended, arts. 3–5, 15–16.

152. Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China 1997 as amended, art. 347.

153. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1987, art. 31A.

154. Law on Psychotropic Substances 1997, art. 59.

155. Penal Law 1990 as amended in 2005, art. 146.

156. Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 as amended, art. 39B.

157. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1993, art. 20.

158. Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997, ss. 6–9.

159. Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 as amended, ss. 15–33.

160. Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 1984, s. 5.

161. Narcotics Act 1979 as amended, s. 65.

162. Penal Code 1999 as amended, arts. 193, 194.

163. ICCPR, art. 6(2).

164. 15 December 1989, 1642 U.N.T.S. 414 (entered into force 11 July 1991). As of May 2015, these states are Australia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste.

165. Application No. 14038/88.

166. Maksudov and Rakhimov v. Kyrgyzstan, Communication No. 1461, 1462, 1476, & 1477/2006, CCPR/C/93/D/1461,1462,1476&1477/2006 at para 12.6.

167. Judge v. Canada, Communication No. 829/1998, CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 at para. 10.4; G.T. v. Australia, Communication No. 706/1996, CCPR/C/61/D/706/1996 at paras. 8.2, 8.3; Kwok Yin Fong v. Australia, Communication No. 1442/2005, CCPR/C/97/D/1442/2005 at para. 9.4.

168. Extradition Act 1988, s. 15B; Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, s. 8(1A).

169. Extradition Act 2003, s. 19.

170. Extradition Act 1977, s. 11(4).

171. Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance 1997, s. 5(3).

172. Extradition and Transfer Act 2001, s. 6.

173. Extradition Act 1974, s. 1(4).

174. Extradition Act 2003, s. 17(2)(e).

175. ADB and OECD, supra note 77 at 39.

176. Ibid., 58.

177. Travaux Préparatoires, supra note 23 at 149.

178. Arts. 4 (Jurisdiction) and 6 (Extradition).

179. 31 October 2003, 2349 U.N.T.S. 41 (entered into force 12 December 2005), arts. 42 (Jurisdiction) and 44 (Extradition).

180. The same language is adopted in other treaties.

181. ADB and OECD, supra note 77 at 58.

182. International Organisation for Migration, Information Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement (Geneva: International Organisation for Migration, 2014) at 8.

183. Maksudov and Rakhnimov v. Kyrgyzstan, supra note 166 at para. 12; Alzery v. Sweden, Communication No. 1416/2005, CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 at para. 11. See also Othman v. the United Kingdom (2012), Application No. 8139/09 at para. 188–9; Extension of Precautionary Measures (N. 259/02) Regarding Detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (2005) by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

184. Amnesty International, Death Penalty and Executions 2015, ACT/50/001/2015 at 37.

185. Ibid., at 31.

186. Ibid., at 41.

187. Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors, (2014) 1 SCC 1.

188. Amnesty International, supra note 184 at 32.

189. Ibid., at 41.

190. BAE, Sangmin, “South Korea’s De Fact Abolition of the Death Penalty” (2009) 82 Pacific Affairs 407 .

* Professor of International Law and Human Rights, School of Law, Keele University, United Kingdom.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Asian Journal of International Law
  • ISSN: 2044-2513
  • EISSN: 2044-2521
  • URL: /core/journals/asian-journal-of-international-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 54
Total number of PDF views: 433 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 606 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 13th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Cancel
Confirm
×