European Union law Part 27

European Union law Part 27

 

372

Constructing Common Cultures: The Ontological and Normative Dimensions of Law in the European Union and Mercosur
Francesco Duina, Nathan Breznau
European Law Journal
Volume 8, Issue 4, December 2002 p.574-595

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

373

The Brown Shoe of European Union Competition Law
Eric S. Hochstadt
Cardozo Law Review
Volume 24, Number 1, November 2002 p.287

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

374

Restructuring “Germany Inc.”: The Politics of Company and Takeover Law Reform in Germany and the European Union
John W. Cioffi
Law & Policy
Volume 24, Issue 4, October 2002 p.355-402

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

375

U.S. COURTS, THE DEATH PENALTY, AND THE DOCTRINE OF SPECIALTY: ENFORCEMENT IN THE HEART OF DARKNESS
Speedy Rice & Renée Luke
Santa Clara Law Review
Volume 42, Number 4, 2002 p.1061

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

Since 1976, state governments in the United States have executed at least 760 people-16 have been foreign nationals. These executions consistently have been opposed by the international community. For instance, the European Union and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights both have called for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. In addition, the United States’ membership in the 41-member Council of Europe now has been conditioned on the United States imposing a moratorium on the death penalty. Numerous countries, such as South Africa, Mexico and Canada, either have declared capital punishment unconstitutional or have legislatively abolished the practice. This clash of opinions regarding the death penalty is heightened when these two worlds collide in extradition proceedings. Since September 11th, the United States government has requested hundreds of so-called terrorists to be extradited to the United States. In addition to the highly publicized Constitutional rights violations, there is perhaps a bigger problem in bringing additional charges after the defendant is extradited. This is especially egregious when the new charge is a capital offense. In the United States, five substantive requirements must be satisfied for extradition to and from the United States: 1) reciprocity; 2) double criminality; 3) an extraditable offense; 4) non-inquiry; and 5) specialty. This article concentrates on the fifth and perhaps most controversial requirement, the doctrine of specialty. In 1886, the United States Supreme Court established this doctrine. It mandates that an accused “shall be tried only for the offense with which he is charged in the extradition proceedings and for which he was delivered up; and that if not tried for that, or after trial and acquittal, he shall have a reasonable time to leave the country before he is arrested upon a charge of any other crime committed previous to his extradition.”This article will examine each element of this doctrine, using case law as primary examples. It then will examine current situations where the United States is violating this doctrine. Finally, the article will give suggestions regarding how extradited defendants and surrendering countries can raise the doctrine of specialty as a defense.

376

TRADEMARK LAW IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (1997-2001)
Sebastien J. Evrard
Columbia Journal of European Law
Volume 9, Number 1, Fall 2002 p.175

LAW JOURNAL / LAW REVIEW

 

Conclusion

Notes

See Also

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

European Union law, United States Supreme Court, country.


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *