Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1508019
 
 

Footnotes (227)



 


 



International Extradition, the Rule of Non-Inquiry, and the Problem of Sovereignty


John T. Parry


Lewis & Clark Law School

February 11, 2010

Boston University Law Review, Vol. 90. p. 1973, 2010
Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research 2010-4

Abstract:     
The law of international extradition in the United States rests on a series of myths that have hardened into doctrine. Perhaps the most significant is the frequent claim that by its nature, extradition is “an executive function, rather than a judicial one.” This claim, in turn, supports additional rules, such as the “rule of non-inquiry,” under which courts hearing extradition cases may not inquire into the procedures or treatment, including possible physical abuse, that await the extraditee in the requesting state. In its 2008 decision in Munaf v. Geren, for example, the Supreme Court applied this rule to the transfer of two U.S. citizens from U.S. military custody to Iraqi custody for trial in Iraqi courts. In response to their claim that they were likely to be tortured in Iraqi custody, the Court stated that “it is for the political branches, not the judiciary, to assess practices in foreign countries and to determine national policy in light of those assessments.”

This article uses the rule of non-inquiry to assess the current state of extradition law and the theories that support it. I focus first on the doctrinal status of the rule, with the goal of demonstrating that it is more flexible than courts often purport to believe and that a more explicitly functional approach would better serve the issues that the non-inquiry doctrine encompasses and implicates. Throughout my doctrinal discussion, I also consider the proper scope of habeas corpus review of extradition decisions.

This article also has broader ambitions. First, my discussion of non-inquiry and the scope of habeas review seeks to historicize these doctrines. Second, I argue for unfreezing extradition law and putting it back into the overall structure of federal law and the current of legal change. Third, my suggestions for the rule of non-inquiry also work within and seek to incorporate some of the many changes in international law that have taken place since the rule was first announced. Fourth, I contest the notion that foreign affairs concerns require courts to refuse to inquire into constitutional or human rights claims.

Finally, I explore the rule of non-inquiry’s reliance on a traditional notion of national, territorial sovereignty. Some writers have pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush as an example of changing conceptions of sovereignty. By contrast, the Munaf majority repeatedly stressed and relied upon Iraq’s “sovereign right” or “prerogative” to punish offenses “committed on its soil.” Thus, on the same day in June 2008, the Supreme Court declared both that sovereignty has changed, and that it remains the same. This article asks whether Munaf’s conception of sovereignty was already outdated or whether it gives the lie to claims that sovereignty has eroded. I also consider a third option, that both conceptions can exist and be consistent with each other in U.S. law, and the article ends by exploring what that coexistence might mean.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 57

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 19, 2009 ; Last revised: November 17, 2010

Suggested Citation

Parry, John T., International Extradition, the Rule of Non-Inquiry, and the Problem of Sovereignty (February 11, 2010). Boston University Law Review, Vol. 90. p. 1973, 2010; Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research 2010-4. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1508019 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1508019

Contact Information

John T. Parry (Contact Author)
Lewis & Clark Law School ( email )
10015 S.W. Terwilliger Blvd.
Portland, OR 97219
United States
503-768-6888 (Phone)
503-768-6671 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,944
Downloads: 269
Download Rank: 63,676
Footnotes:  227

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.547 seconds