Extradition and Alternatives

Bruce Zagaris

doi:10.1017/CBO9781316258330.012

11 - Extradition and Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2015

Bruce Zagaris

Show author details

Bruce Zagaris: Affiliation:
Berliner, Corcoran and Rowe, Washington, DC

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

When suspects flee a country to avoid prosecution, that country's authorities must gain custody of them before they can be tried and convicted. The most common way to gain custody is through extradition, whereby one state – the requested state – transfers custody of a fugitive or accused person, known as the relator, to another state – the requesting state – for criminal prosecution. During the process the relator can choose to return voluntarily, waiving extradition. States can also gain custody over a relator through legal tools like exclusion and deportation or through abduction by fraud (“luring”) or by force.

The number of extradition cases has risen dramatically over the past fifty years, both in the United States and abroad. According to the Department of State, U.S. courts certified 137 extradition requests between 1945 and 1960 – an average of only 9 per year. In 1995, in contrast, the United States extradited 79 people to other countries and received custody of 131.

Several factors discussed throughout this book have contributed to this enormous increase, including globalization, the expansion of free trade, and broadened access to international communication and travel. Many states, including the United States, have concluded extradition treaties and related enforcement mechanisms and devoted increasing resources to investigating and prosecuting transnational crime.

A Hypothetical

You represent Anne Celtic, a dual national of Belize and the Netherlands. Celtic is a well-known entrepreneur in Belize, with extensive connections to the country's business elite and government. The former minority owner of a bank, she now spends most of her time running a hotel and an Internet gaming business that she owns. In responding to this hypothetical, you should review the U.S.-Belize extradition treaty and the list of extraditable offenses in the U.S.-Netherlands extradition treaty, both of which are included in this chapter.

A prosecutor in Louisiana has brought criminal charges against Celtic for violating Louisiana criminal laws prohibiting Internet gaming and for tax crimes arising from her failure to declare and pay taxes on the gains from the profits earned from the business.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: International White Collar Crime
Cases and Materials
, pp. 413 - 482

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316258330.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2015

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbell, Michael, Extradition to and from the United States (Nijhoff 2010).Google Scholar

Bassiouni, M. Cherif, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice ((Oxford Press) 6, 4th ed. 2014).Google Scholar

González, Carlos Cezón, Derecho Extraditicional (Madrid: Dykinson 2003).Google Scholar

Extradition Laws And Treaties, United States (loose-leaf, I.I. Kavass& A. Sprudzscomp. 1980–).

Gilbert, Geoff, Transnational Fugitive Offenders in International Law (1998).Google Scholar

Krivel, Elaine F., Thomas Beveridge, & John W. Hayward, A Practical Guide to Canadian Extradition (2002).Google Scholar

La Forest, Anne Warner, LA, Forest's Extradition to and from Canada (3d ed. 1991).

Shearer, Ivan A., Extradition in International Law (1971).Google Scholar

Wijngaert, Christine Van Den, The Political Offense Exception to Extradition (1980).Google Scholar

25 Loy. L.A. Int'L & Comp. L.Rev. NO. 3 (2003) (issue has nine articles devoted to extradition).

Abramovsky, Abraham, Extraterritorial Abductions: America's “Catch and Snatch” Policy Run Amok, 31 Va. J. Int'L L.151 (1991).Google Scholar

Abramovsky, Abraham & Edelstein, Jonathan I., The Sheinbein Case and the Israeli-American Extradition Experience: A Need for Compromise, 32 Vand. J. Transnat'l L.305 (1999).Google Scholar

Arenell, P., Reid, A., Hackers Beware: The Cautionary Story of Gary McKinnon, 18 Information & Communications Technology1–12 (Mr. 2009).Google Scholar

Blakesley, Christopher L., A Conceptual Framework for Extradition and Jurisdiction over Extraterritorial Crimes, 1984 UTAH L. Rev. 685.Google Scholar

Brandes, R. E., Who's Afraid of Universal Jurisdiction?: The Fujimori Case, 15 Southwestern J. Of Law and Trade in the Americas, 123–40 (2008).Google Scholar

Nadelmann, Ethan A., The Evolution of United States Involvement in the International Rendition of Fugitive Criminals, 25 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. Pol.813 (1993).Google Scholar

Goldin, A., The California Three Strikes Law: A Violation of International Law and a Possible Impediment to Extradition, 15 Southwestern J. Of Int'l L.327–60 (2009).Google Scholar

O'Higgins, Paul, The History of Extradition in British Practice, 13 Indian Y.B. Int'l Aff.78 (1964).Google Scholar

Iraola, R., Contradictions, Explanations, and Probable Cause Determination at a Foreign Extradition Hearing, 60 Syracuse L.R.95–124 (2009).Google Scholar

Jones, A., Fisher, J., The Impact of New UK-US Extradition Laws on the Financial Markets, 3 Law and Financial Markets Review231–40(2007).Google Scholar

Meddoff, R., Extradition by Abduction Violates the Rule of Law and Frustrates United States Initiatives Abroad, 36 N. England J. On Criminal and Civil Confinement53–74 (2010).Google Scholar

Mendez, J. E., Significance of the Fujimori Trial, 25 American Univ. Int'l L.R.649–56 (2010).Google Scholar

Morgan, E. M., Traffic Circles: The Legal Logic of Drug Extraditions, 31 U of Pennsylvania J. of Int'l L.372–425 (2009).Google Scholar

Parry, John T., The Lost History of International Extradition Litigation, 43 Va. J. Int'l L.93 (2002).Google Scholar

Parry, J. T., International Extradition, the Rule of Noninquiry, and the Problem of Sovereignty, 90 Boston U. L.1973–2029 (2010).Google Scholar

Plachta, Michael, (Non-)Extradition of Nationals: A Neverending Story? 13 Emory Int'l L Rev.77 (1999).Google Scholar

Sage, M. V., The Exploitation of Legal Loopholes in the Name of National Security: A Case Study on Extraordinary Rendition, 37 California West. Int'l L.J.121–40 (2006).Google Scholar

Summers, M. A., Rereading Rauscher: Is It Time for the United States to Abandon the Rule of Specialty? 48 Duquesne L.R.1–31 (2010).Google Scholar

Swart, Bert, Extradition, in International Criminal Law in the Netherlands 107 (Swart, Bert & Klip, A. eds.), (1997).

Commonwealth Scheme for Rendition of Fugitive Offenders (as amended 1990) LMM (90) 32.

European Convention on Extradition (http://conventions.coe.int).

OAS, Inter-American Extradition Convention (www.oas.org).

UN Model Treaty on Extradition, General Assembly Resolution 45/116, 45 U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 49A, at 211, U.N. Doc. A/45/59A (1991), as amended by General Assembly Resolution 52/88, 52 U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 49, at 213, U.N. Doc. A/52/49 (Vol. 1).

United States Department of Justice, United States Attorneys Manual, Title 9-Criminal Division, Chapter 15 (International Extradition and Related Matters), and Criminal Resource Manual.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.