Rovine, Arthur W.

SMU Digital Repository

Report on United States-United Kingdom Extradition Treaty

Southern Methodist University

SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTSAmerican Bar Association Section ofInternational Law and PracticeReports to the House of DelegatesI. Report on United States-UnitedKingdom Extradition Treaty*RECOMMENDATIONRESOLVED that the American Bar Association:Urges that the Supplementary Extradition Treaty with the United King-dom, signed on June 25, 1985, be ratified.REPORT1. The purpose of this report is to analyze the provisions of the Sup-plementary Extradition Treaty with the United Kingdom, signed at Wash-ington on June 25, 1985, in order to determine the position the AmericanBar Association should take with respect to the exclusion of certain actsfrom the application of the political offense exception to extradition pro-vided for in the 1972 Extradition Treaty between the United States andthe United Kingdom (28 U.S.T227; TIAS 8468).2. A copy of the supplementary treaty and the State Department's analysisof its provisions are set forth in the message of July 17, 1985, from the Pres-ident transmitting the treaty to the Senate and recommending its advice andconsent to ratification [S. TREATY Doc. No. 8, 99th Cong., 1 st Sess. (1985)].Article I of the supplementary treaty would exclude specified crimesof violence, frequently committed by terrorists, from the scope of thepolitical offense exception to extradition.*24(4) INT'L LEGAL MAT. 1104 (July 1985); Senate advice and consent to ratification.July 17, 1986, 25(6) INT'L LEGAL MAT. 1638 (Nov. 1986).272 THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERSubsections (a) through (d) of Article I would exclude from the excep-tion, aircraft hijacking, aircraft sabotage, crimes against internationallyprotected persons, including diplomats, and hostage taking.Subsections (e) through (k) list unlawful homicides (murder and man-slaughter); maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, kid-napping; abduction, false imprisonment, unlawful detention including thetaking of hostages; causing an explosion likely to endanger life or causeserious damage to property, conspiracy to cause such an explosion, mak-ing or possessing of explosives with intent to cause life to be endangeredor serious damage to property; possessing of firearms or ammunition withintent to endanger life; use of firearms with intent to resist or preventarrest; damaging property with intent to endanger life or with a recklessdisregard as to whether life would be endangered.Subsection (1) would exclude any attempt to commit the listed offenses.3. Broad Association policy in regard to the political offenses exceptionwas expressed in the February 1981 Resolution on International Terrorism,sponsored by the Section of International Law. In relevant part, thisresolution included a strong recommendation that the United States con-tinue its effort to develop and support new initiatives to combat inter-national terrorism, including:... the attainment of an international consensus not to regard crimes of terroristviolence, particularly those stipulated in the conventions referred to in thisresolution, to be political offenses or offenses of a political character, withinthe meaning of bilateral or multilateral extradition arrangements or nationallaws governing extradition.More specifically, ABA policy with respect to certain general legislativeproposals relevant to the political offense exception to extradition thenpending in Congress, was expressed in Report No. 104A approved by theHouse of Delegates in August 1983. In relevant part the ABA stronglyrecommended that such legislation:b. exclude all acts of terrorist violence from the application of the politicaloffense exception, particularly those denounced by multilateral conventionsto prevent and punish acts of international terrorism,c. preclude the application of the political offense exception to offenses whichconstitute serious breaches of the norms established under internationalhumanitarian law applicable in international and noninternational armed con-flicts, without subjecting to extradition combatants for warlike acts whichdo not transgress those norms.The ABA has not addressed the applicability of these policies to thesituations in particular countries.4. Ratification of the Supplementary Extradition Treaty is important inthe fight against terrorism and will enhance the ability of the United Statesto secure the extradition of those who use violence against U.S. citizensor interests for political purposes.VOL. 21, NO. ISECTION RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS 273In particular, the provisions of subparagraphs (a) through (d) and (1)of Article I, excluding from the exception acts covered by multilateralconventions to deter and punish international terrorist acts, reflect theABA policy emphasis with respect to those offenses. Again consistentwith the thrust of ABA policy on terrorist offenses, subparagraphs (e)through (k) deal with other violent crimes that are felonies in both theUnited States and the United Kingdom.Since subparagraphs (e) through (k) do not distinguish between acts ofviolence when they occur in situations falling short of non-internationalarmed conflict and when they occur in non-international armed conflict,a question might be raised whether in the context of non-internationalarmed conflict, these subparagraphs are fully consistent with the policyenunciated in 1983 in ABA Report 104A with respect to the general leg-islative proposals then pending. See this Section's Report to the Houseof Delegates attached as Enclosure 3 to Report 104A.Traditionally, a distinction has been drawn between armed conflict anddisorders falling short of armed conflict in order to prevent making thegovernment's security personnel and property fair game for terrorist at-tacks in situations falling short of armed conflict. While ABA policy es-tablished with respect to legislation has called for such a distinction to bemade, governments are reluctant to draft treaties dealing with normal lawenforcement relationships in a manner that expressly contemplates suchevents.It is the understanding of the ABA Section of International Law andPractice that, in negotiating and concluding this treaty, the United Statesand British governments do not contemplate either country being involvedin a non-international armed conflict, civil war, or insurrection, or gov-erning dependent territories the population of which no longer desire thatrelationship. In the light of this understanding the Section concludes thatratification of the Treaty is consistent with ABA policy. It is the hope ofthis Section that this understanding will be included in the Report of theSenate Foreign Relations Committee recommending that the Senate giveits advice and consent to ratification.CONCLUSIONThe Supplementary Extradition Treaty should be ratified by the Pres-ident with the advice and consent of the Senate.Respectfully submitted,Arthur W. RovineChairmanFebruary 1986WINTER 1987

English

https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&amp;context=til

Report on United States-United Kingdom Extradition Treaty

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SMU Digital Repository

Southern Methodist University