The paper highlighted this week was written in 2018 and provides some useful background to the current hullabaloo in Hong Kong.
In an article for the Journal of Human Rights Asif Efrat and Marcello Tomasina, both from the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliyah in Tel Aviv, look at Australia and Canada and their pursuit of as yet unsigned (Australia) and largely un-negotiated (Canada) extradition treaties.
The article provides a reminder of the fundamental principles that have been applied in extradition arrangements for most of the last 50-years by Western administrations.
Extradition should not facilitate the removal of persons to jurisdictions where:
- They are likely to receive abusive treatment
- The are likely to be subjected to an unfair trial process, and
- They may suffer the death penalty
These principles are clear and have been cited, for example, by Europe with regard to requests from certain States in the U.S. on the grounds of points 1) and 3) (the sometimes decades long wait for execution is deemed abusive treatment).
How then, with such clear principles, did Australia nearly ratify a treaty with China in 2017 (parliament voted it down, but it’ll likely be back) and Canada agree to begin a discussion on the same in 2016? For both these countries the decision to engage on the matter appears to be in especially stark contrast with their domestic and international human rights records?
There is of course the legitimate desire of wanting to avoid being a safe harbor for mainland Chinese bandits; but, on the other hand …. The paper highlights how in the real world things are, well, just sometimes complicated.
You’ll find the paper in full via this link Value-Free Extradition?
Happy Sunday.