Principles Of Extradition

IINTRODUCING DIMENSIONS OF EXTRADITION

Extradition has been defined by Oppenheim as “ delivery of an accused or a convictedindividual to the state on whose territory he is alleged to have committed or to have beenconvicted of a crime by the state on whose territory the alleged criminals happens to be for the time being”. The term extradition denotes the process whereby under treaty or upon abasis of reciprocity one state surrender to another state at its request a person accused orconvicted of a criminals offence against the law of the requesting state, such requesting state being competent to try alleged offender.

The very basis of principle of Extradition finds itself in vicious circle of conflict of laws and jurisdiction and sometimes

We have witnessed in this century, the growth of sophisticated crime. Here, question is, whether existing periphery of extradition norms are competent enough to combat such a kind of sophistication? As mentioned earlier, extradition should be seen with a diverse view. Not all demands of extradition can be genuine, but also we have to kept in mind that most of them are genuine demand so in fist instance the question of human right arises and in the latter, the issue of state sovereignty stands. If we examine closer, the purpose of extradition we are left that, is to prevent criminals who flee from a jurisdiction to escape from punishment for criminal offence they have been accused or convicted of. Now, the question arises whether the very objective is sufficient enough while the concept of extradition purports to bring the convicted into home jurisdiction? When we see though glass of a great jurist Dr.UpendraBakshiwho refined an immense contact in realm of what constitutes human right?whether a legal person a human

The 1946 Constitutionof the International Refugee Organization had excluded from the IRO’s mandatepersons who ‘participated in any terrorist organization’ after the war. Treatyobligations discussing a “right to asylum” are understood in various ways, generally not toprovide for a right to receiveasylum but apply for it. However, the past few decades have showna growth in conventionsaddressing asylum, especially, but not limited to, the European context.With refugee flows being an inherently international concern with a need for durable solutions,increasingly refugees are being assimilated to asylum-seekers. States are reacting or anticipatingthese issues by adopting domestic rights to asylum, at least for individuals qualifying as refugees.These trends suggest an evolving international consensus on opiniojurisand state practice thatrefugees must receive asylum. Thus, it appears that the right to asylum for refugees exists undercustomary international lawHowever, this right of the state does not necessarily exclude a right of individuals to receiveasylum if conventional or customary international law also demand it. Accordingly, the secondsection examines the right of the individual to receive asylum. In the first sub-section, the authorlooks at