Political Offenders Research Articles

New Trends in the Law of Extradition and Asylum

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS as well as individual writers generally admit that public international law is not a static body of rules but a dynamic concept which must be developed with the growth of the international community.2 The law of extradition, which has been amply and ably treated by some of the most learned writers in the history of the science of law,3 constitutes no exception to this rule. The question of extradition lies in the shadowy borderland between international and municipal law, and its most burning problem concerns extradition of political offenders, or asylum granted to them. The history of this problem can hardly be sketched in an article of this kind.4 It is enough to remind the reader of the most famous cases like In re Castione5 and In re Meunier,6 as well as the more recent cases of In re Kaphengst,7 In re Richard Eckermann,8 and In re Barratini.9 The question has been treated on several occasions by l'Institut de Droit

The Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case: Termination of the Judicial Phase

For two and a half years, Colombia and Peru have engaged in a controversy regarding the status as a political offender and the ultimate disposition of Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, long-time chief of the leftist Alianza Popular Revolucianaria Americana (APBA), who was granted asylum in the Colombian Embassy at Lima on January 3, 1949. Several months of fruitless diplomatic negotiation between the parties were followed by their submission of the case to the International Court of Justice which, in turn, has dealt with various aspects of the matter in the course of three successive judgments.

Political Offenses in the Law and Practice of Extradition

Since the middle of the 18th century the practice of extradition has gradually developed until today there are some 350 extradition conventions, practically all bilateral in nature, and extradition laws in twelve or more states. These conventions and laws regulate the various phases of extradition procedure, and, in most instances, contain an article concerning political offenses. This circumstance, combined with the fact that political offenders are numerous, makes the problem of political offenders in extradition one of current importance.

The Settlement of Lausanne

On August 6, 1924, nearly six years after the Armistice of Mudros, the state of war which had existed in the Near East since 1914 was terminated as between Turkey, on the one hand, and the British Empire, Italy and Japan, on the other hand, by the drawing up of the first procès-verbal of the deposit at Paris of the ratifications of the settlement concluded at Lausanne on July 24,1923. The state of war between Greece and Turkey had already been terminated a year ago, pursuant to the settlement of Lausanne, and under the terms of the same settlement the Allied forces of occupation had been withdrawn from Turkish territory; the prisoners of war and interned civilians detained by Greece and Turkey, respectively, had been mutually restored; the compulsory exchange of certain portions of the Greek and Turkish populations had been effected; and a general amnesty for political offenders had been declared. The portions of the settlement brought into force by the recent ratifications are the Treaty of Peace, the Straits Convention,the Commercial Convention and the Convention respecting Jurisdiction and the Conditions of Residence and Business. Certain instruments which did not require ratification, including the Declarations relating to Sanitary Matters and to the Administration of Justice and the Protocol and Declaration relating to Concessions, may now also be expected to be given practical effect.