Tag: International Law

Charges and International Extradition

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

An international request for the extradition of a fugitive is triggered by an interest, on the part of the foreign country making the request, to prosecute the fugitive for a criminal offense, or to secure his presence so that a sentence can be imposed for an offense for which his guilt has been determined, or so that he can begin service of a sentence. Extradition treaties express this concept in different ways. For example, some treaties call for the surrender of persons who have been “charged with or found guilty of,” or “charged with or convicted of,” extraditable offenses. Others ask for surrender “for prosecution or for imposition or execution of a sentence,” or “for prosecution or for the imposition or enforcement of a sentence,” or for “trial or punishment,” or for “prosecution, trial, or imposition or execution of punishment” of an extraditable offense. Read More …

The Lisbon Treaty and E.U. Treaty-Making Power: The Next Evolutionary Step and its Effect on Member States and Third-Party Nations

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

The European Union (EU) overcame the final hurdle to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty in October 2009 when, in the country’s second referendum on the treaty, a majority of Irish citizens voted for ratification. Following the vote, the Lisbon Treaty entered into effect on December 1, 2009. The Lisbon Treaty signals many changes for the EU, but this Note will focus on the formal treaty-making power that article 216 grants to the EU. Read More …

After Regime Change: United States Law and Policy Regarding Iraqi Refugees, 2003-2008

Posted onAuthorAdministrator

This is a critical history of the legal and public policy response by the United States to the Iraqi refugee crisis. Its thesis is that a sharp contrast has developed between U.S. immigration courts on one hand, and the U.S. State Department, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) such as Human Rights Watch on the other, on the question of whether Iraqis driven from the country since the 2003 war are fleeing “random” violence or targeted persecution. U.S. courts have tended toward findings of “random” violence in order to deny Iraqi asylum-seekers the right to remain in the United States under the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol, and the U.N. Convention on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 (Torture Convention). Thus, U.S. immigration judges, and some federal appellate judges, have concluded that because multi-national forces (MNF) led by the United States and United Kingdom deposed the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein and are now guaranteeing security, even Iraqis who can prove past persecution and torture by the Iraqi government are not refugees and are not entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture, which protects persons from being deported to face a risk of torture. As a result of these findings and other laws, by 2008 the United States offered protection to only 14,000 out of the 2.5 million refugees that have fled Iraq. Read More …