This chapter focuses on the legal ramifications of the rendition of Taiping Lieutenant Hou Yutian (mistakenly identified as Mo Wang) by the Hong Kong government to the Canton administration in 1865. This case was the first to reveal the tension between the Treaty of Tianjin (1858) and colonial law regarding fugitive rendition. The strong reaction of the British public to the execution of Hou by “lingering death” led to Britain’s amendment of its fugitive rendition procedure under the Treaty of Tianjin. The British government henceforth no longer considered “political offenses” as an extraditable crime to China and stipulated that no prisoner could be surrendered without a guarantee by the Chinese government of a “fair trial” and a pledge not to use any torture. While the Qing government accepted the amendment as an act of expediency, the British Foreign Office interpreted it as an acquiescence to British rules of extradition and the Political Offense Exception (POE).

This chapter introduces the key research questions of the book and outlines a theoretical framework for studying political crimes as a comparative concept. It highlights the significance of understanding political crimes as a transborder phenomenon and argues that the Qing state confronted serious challenges from the mid nineteenth century onward in handing fugitive renditions, as they became regulated by treaties whose implementation was often subject to the discretion of foreign diplomats, colonial officials, and municipal councils.

This chapter explores the relationship between the sharp rise in banditry, rebellion, and mixed crimes along the Qing Empire’s southern borders in the mid 1880s, and the responses of local administrators in Hong Kong and Canton to the challenges of extraditing fugitives. It traces the concurrent emergence of two contrasting discourses on justice: one framing justice as a system of legal protections against Qing law (prevalent across the Canton–Hong Kong border and increasingly within foreign concessions in treaty ports), and another asserting that foreign interference undermined the traditional justice system (notably along the Yangzi River and in missionary enclaves). This chapter argues that both discourses were strategically adopted by anti-Qing rebellions in the 1890s.

This chapter examines the Chinese government’s approach to political crimes and extradition procedures from the treaty ports during the first two decades of the Republic in the 1910s–1920s. It seeks to understand how the ideas of extradition and the POE changed in this period as a result of both domestic and global political processes: the growth of nationalism and communism, the strengthening and consolidation of the political parties, the increased professionalization of Chinese lawyers and judges, and the emergence of critical voices among foreign powers on the institution of extraterritoriality. The chapter presents a legal and transnational view of the Chinese Revolution in the first two decades of the Republic, illuminating the profound impact of extraterritoriality and changing extradition rules on China’s political trajectory.

This chapter makes a case for rethinking the early history of colonial Hong Kong – for seeing the young colony as an ambiguous juridical space, shaped and bounded by inchoate ideas of extradition. History has forgotten this feature of early Hong Kong because most studies have assumed, anachronistically, that the Opium War treaties of 1842–43 instituted ‘extradition’ between Hong Kong and China, in addition to British ‘extraterritoriality’ in China. In fact, these ideas took time to crystallise from fuzzier arrangements for dividing jurisdiction. This jurisdictional ambiguity coincided with the belated rise of territorial thinking in the British Empire. It also coincided with ongoing developments in the British approach to surrendering fugitives to foreign states – a procedure that legal actors were only starting to refer to as ‘extradition’. So, historicising the idea of extradition allows us to understand how British actors perceived their practices in Hong Kong and China in comparison to their practices elsewhere. This perspective reveals that the imperial origins of extradition involved crucial experiments in the colonial ordering of territory, people, and executive power.

Several provisions of the Convention deal with obligations to punish or suppress genocide using criminal law mechanisms. States Parties to the Convention are required to prosecute the crime of genocide and to provide for appropriate penalties. The Convention provides explicitly for territorial jurisdiction, and makes no mention of other forms, such as active and passive personality jurisdiction. The drafters of the Convention rejected reference to universal jurisdiction although it is now recognized under customary international law. States are also required to cooperate in extradition of suspects to stand trial for genocide.

The Apamea peace conference after Magnesia included Roman demands for Hannibal’s extradition; he forestalled this by going on his travels again. These are poorly documented. A Cretan visit is probably historical but hard to explain. It was unconnected with attested contemporary Roman official visits. A Polybius fragment may allude to a financial ploy by which he kept his savings intact. He moved to Armenia, where inscriptions attest familiarity with Greek poetry; his stay is attested mainly by Plutarch’s Lucullus. He helped King Artaxias to found Artaxata, but moved on again, for reasons unknown. His next choice, King Prusias’ Bithynia, is puzzling (closer to Italy), but Prusias was at war with Rome’s friend Eumenes of Pergamum. Hannibal won a sea battle for Prusias, but weird details are suspect. Here too he helped a king found a city: Prusa. But Prusias succumbed to Roman vindictiveness and Hannibal took poison. His tomb site is unknown.

The chapter highlights the central role national jurisdictions (should) play in the system of international criminal enforcement and addresses the most common legal issues and practical obstacles which may obstruct the pursuit of accountability at the domestic level. The chapter provides an overview of the relevant state practice from the earlier notable precedents to the most recent instances of prosecution and adjudication of core crimes before domestic courts, in particular under the universal jurisdiction. It clarifies the scope of the duties international law imposes on states, including the obligation to extradite or prosecute. The chapter then zeroes in on every principal issue related to the domestic prosecution and adjudication of international crimes, such the need for adequate implementing legislation as well as the extent to which domestic prosecutions may be hindered by the statutes of limitations, the prohibition on retroactive application of penal provisions, and the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy). The chapter’s final section addresses the political and practical obstacles to tackling impunity for international crimes at the domestic level.

The chapter explains the principles of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters in connection with domestic proceedings. It sets out the international legal framework governing criminal law cooperation among states, including multilateral and bilateral agreements of general application and treaties specifically concerning international crimes, most notably the 2023 Ljubljana–The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes. The chapter sets out the differences between the traditional forms of assistance in criminal matters, which are associated with a higher degree of formality and subject to broader grounds for refusal and, on the other hand, the more advanced forms of cooperation (exemplified by mutual recognition in the European Union context) prioritizing effective enforcement while recognizing limited grounds to refuse requests. The chapter reviews the prerogatives of the requested states to refuse under these models with reference to double criminality, specialty, statutory limitations, ne bis in idem, and human rights concerns. It then takes a closer look at the traditional forms of cooperation and the issues which arise in that context, focusing on extradition, other mutual legal assistance, transfer of criminal proceedings, and enforcement of foreign penalties.

How does the cloak of immunity protecting foreign public officials under international law enable their impunity before foreign courts for the crimes they committed for private gain? This was the question with which the book commenced. In answering it, an interdisciplinary attempt was made to come to grips with the structural injustices created by international rules of immunity in preventing well-resourced and internationally protected political elites from accountability for trafficking in persons, corruption and money laundering, and drug trafficking. The ways in which these crimes are perpetrated by political elites constitute an advanced form of criminality in which the perpetrators abuse their authority and personal privileges as public officials and, in so doing, disguise misconduct in the official mandate and even under the pretense of law-abiding behavior. These are the ultimate economic crimes that occur at the nexus of power, privilege, and impunity.

This chapter discusses international criminal law (fighting political crimes) and transboundary police cooperation (fighting common crimes), though mechanisms such as the ICC, but also extradition and abduction

Volume 2 of The Cambridge History of Global Migrations presents an authoritative overview of the various continuities and changes in migration and globalization from the 1800s to the present day. Despite revolutionary changes in communication technologies, the growing accessibility of long-distance travel, and globalization across major economies, the rise of nation-states empowered immigration regulation and bureaucratic capacities for enforcement that curtailed migration. One major theme worldwide across the post-1800 centuries was the differentiation between “skilled” and “unskilled” workers, often considered through a racialized lens; it emerged as the primary divide between greater rights of immigration and citizenship for the former, and confinement to temporary or unauthorized migrant status for the latter. Through thirty-one chapters, this volume further evaluates the long global history of migration; and it shows that despite the increased disciplinary systems, the primacy of migration remains and continues to shape political, economic, and social landscapes around the world.

This chapter begins by addressing classic extradition, its historical roots and the key moments in its evolution, notably its permeation by fundamental rights after World War II, which has caused it to shift from a bilateral political arrangement to a ‘triangular’ (Eser) legal procedure where the individual concerned plays an active role. It assesses the main grounds for refusal – such as nationality, political offences and dual criminality –, and the variation into which they have developed within the European Union. The chapter then delves into the European Arrest Warrant, where proceedings have been fully judicialised and grounds for refusal considerably narrowed. The authors examine the question of whether (and to which extent) the European Arrest Warrant and the underlying principle of mutual recognition have brought about a radical change of paradigm, especially in the light of the (welcomed) ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Aranyosi and Căldăraru. The conclusion anticipates the challenges that lie ahead and underscores the key role of the Court of Justice for the preservation of the whole European arrest warrant system.

How far can a state extend its jurisdiction beyond its borders? In this chapter we make the distinction between state sovereignty and jurisdiction and then outline the five principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction. By providing examples for each jurisdictional principle, the differences between them are sharpened and the ways in which they may overlap are clarified. An interesting area for extraterritorial jurisdiction is the Internet; a brief examination of the European Union’s General Data Privacy Regulation serves to highlight the complexities. The chapter concludes with two practices states can use to attempt to pull alleged criminals who are in another state back into their own jurisdiction for prosecution.  Extradition is a legal process agreed to by states. Rendition, though also used by some states, is not and runs afoul of human rights.

The agreeing of the TCA prevented the cliff edge consequences that law enforcement and prosecution authorities had been preparing for since 2016. The TCA sets out comprehensive provision in Part Three for Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. With such a short period until the agreement was subsequently ratified and in force, there was little time for parliamentary scrutiny. This chapter seeks to examine the detailed arrangements which will form the basis of co-operation between the UK and the EU for the foreseeable future and asks how well the provisions work for Northern Ireland and the CTA.

This chapter examines the marginal notes added to the key British dossiers relating to the Sung Man Cho v. Superintendent of Prisons case, revealing a picture of perplexity and even confusion as to the way ahead in ongoing correspondence between the British Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Home Office and other concerned departments. In the background, especially as interpreted by Crown Council F. C. Jenkin QC, stood a complex British legal discourse on banishment/deportation and extradition.