Introduction

This book does not aim to understate the severity of any offences or exaggerate the generalisability of the complex issues raised in the cases presented throughout. Rather, the goal is to highlight broader concerns about the protective aspects of extradition in contemporary global society that have been compromised by the skewed relationship between individual and state rights. The book argues the normative assumptions that determine how, why, when and against whom extradition operates must be re-examined in both their historical and contemporary forms to produce meaningful improvements to this branch of transnational criminal law. This chapter concludes by arguing a defendant-centred approach to extradition must adopt a revised series of normative assumptions that prioritise international human rights and domestic due process protections.

The Need for Reform

Extradition is an agreement between nation states reinforced through bi- or multilateral treaties. Judicial decisions examining individual rights do not sit readily within a contractual structure that prioritises political comity when examining the extension of national criminal jurisdiction beyond established territorial limits. While extradition treaties, and rules such as double criminality and specialty, offer qualified defendant-centred protection, extradition is ultimately an executive and political act. At times, executive decision-making can serve a protective function. As previous literature and the cases in this book demonstrate, this is not always reflected in the judicial process.

Chapters 2 and 3 indicate judicial outcomes examining the welfare of the extraditee or a nation's conduct overwhelmingly uphold the initial extradition request. This finding is partly explained by the tendency to frame the extraditee as a fugitive from the requesting state, rather than a person facing an accusation triggered by the request. The implications of the distinction are significant. A fugitive refers to an escapee or person subject to an in absentia conviction, who must be apprehended and surrendered to face the consequences of justice decisions that have already been made. By contrast, people facing accusations should be able to raise legally enforceable human rights and due process arguments in their defence. Research establishes the power to allege can be particularly onerous on domestic crime suspects (Pavlich and Unger 2017). This book's findings reinforce this trend, given the complexity and indeterminacy associated with legal challenges in complex extradition cases.