International human rights law Part 41

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

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.

Zawati, Hilmi M. Is Jih?d a Just War? War, Peace and Human Rights Under Islamic and Public International Law
M. Cherif Bassiouni
American Journal of International Law
Volume 96, Number 4, October 2002 p.1000

State Immunity in National and International Law: Three Recent Cases Before the European Court of Human Rights
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Leiden Journal of International Law
Volume 15, Number 3, September 2002 p.703-714

AFRICAN COURTS, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND COMPARATIVE CASE LAW: CHIMERA OR EMERGING HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE?
Mirna E. Adjami
Michigan Journal of International Law
Volume 24, Number 1, Fall 2002 p.103

PANEL ISSUE – THE PROSPECTIVE ROLE OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND ECONOMIC INTEGRATION
New York University Journal of International Law and Politics
Volume 35, Number 1, Fall 2002

A Culture of Impunity: Applying International human rights law to the United Nations in East Timor
Carla Bongiorno
Columbia Human Rights Law Review
Volume 33, Number 3, Summer 2002 p.623

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

International human rights law, United States Supreme Court, country.