skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 70732 Find in a Library
Title: Extradite or Punish
Journal: Revue de droit penal et de criminologie  Volume:60  Issue:1 and 2  Dated:special issue (January/February 1980)  Pages:113-125
Author(s): J Bigay
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 13
Format: Article
Language: French
Country: Belgium
Annotation: The implications of the newly emerging policy of 'extradite or punish' as a means of controlling international crime are explored.
Abstract: In the numerous conventions adopted since 1970 to increase the effectiveness of international crime control, extradition has become recognized as the principal favored procedure. In addition, the principle of 'extradite or punish?' i.e., extradite offenders or take legal action against them in the country that refuses to extradite them, is applied to assure the effectiveness of the extradition approach. In general, extradition is refused by countries such as France, in cases where grounds exist to halt public action because the offense was not committed in France, and in cases where public action is not halted. While there is no obligation to punish offenders of the first category who have not been extradited, punishment is normal upon refusal to extradite offenders of the third category. Punishment is not feasible for cases in the second category. While the conventions of The Hague and Montreal, as well as U.N. conventions, conform to these conceptions, the European Convention for the Repression of Terrorism requires punishment in cases of nonextradition only when the rules of competence for requesting extradition overlap for the state requesting extradition and the state from which extradition is requested. The principle of 'extradite or punish' is both a criticism of extradition and an affirmation of international solidarity in the fight against international crime. The compromises in the Convention for the Repression of Terrorism suggest that certain states are reticent to accept allout efforts to repress terrorism. A reserve clause allows countries such as France to refuse extradition for political offenses under circumstances in which countries such as Germany would grant extradition. Clearly, the reserve clause will pose problems of interpretation: if and when France ratifies the convention, she will insist on the right to grant political asylum. Furthermore, punishment of political refugees for offenses committed in their own countries is viewed in French circles as problematic. Notes are supplied.
Index Term(s): Antiterrorist laws; Council of Europe; France; International agreements; International extradition; Political offender nonextradition; Political offenders
Note: Presented at the 16th Franco-Belgo-Luxembourgian Meeting on Criminal Science, May 18-19,1979.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.