NCJ Number
108081
Journal
Connecticut Journal of International Law Volume: 2 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1987) Pages: 463-498
Date Published
1987
Length
36 pages
Annotation
This article describes the political offense exception to extradition agreements as interpreted by recent U.S. cases involving members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), outlines both versions of the U.S.-United Kingdom Supplementary Extradition Treaty, and examines implications of the compromise treaty in light of the balance between individual rights and international public order.
Abstract
The political offense exception allows the requested state to deny return of the person sought if the alleged crime is of a political nature. What constitutes a political crime has never been defined in extradition treaties, and interpretations focus on the actor's motivations or the context in which the act was taken. Three cases which influenced the U.S.-U.K. Supplementary Treaty are discussed: In re McMullen, In re Macklin, and In re Doherty. In denying extradition, these decisions interpreted the political offense exception too liberally and inadvertently legitimized the IRA and its use of violence to effect political change in Northern Ireland. The article compares provisions of the original Supplementary Treaty, which would have placed the entire extradition decision in the hands of the executive branch, with the compromise version ratified in 1986. Topics explored include arguments for and against eliminating the political offense exception, the questionable fairness in Northern Ireland judicial proceedings, retroactivity, and political consequences. 146 footnotes.