By Md. Arif Imam
Published on: 30 January, 2024 at 11:00 IST
In our interconnected world, the escape of criminals across borders presents a complex puzzle for law enforcement agencies. However, the solution to this complex challenge often lies in the diplomatic channels that facilitate collaboration among nations.
In an era of global interdependence, criminal activities seldom confine themselves within national boundaries. This reality has given rise to a pressing issue for law enforcement worldwide – the pursuit of offenders who exploit the porosity of borders to evade justice. At the heart of addressing this challenge lies the crucial role of diplomatic channels. Nations, through diplomatic collaboration, can navigate legal complexities, transcending sovereign limits to bring criminals to justice.
Diplomatic channels refer to the means and methods by which countries communicate, negotiate, and conduct official relations with each other. These channels are crucial for addressing bilateral and multilateral issues, promoting cooperation, and resolving conflicts between nations. Here are some key diplomatic channels:
This article delves into the practical use of diplomatic ways to track down and hold accountable those who escape from justice by seeking shelter in foreign lands.
Extradition as a Diplomatic Tool:
The Supreme Court defined extradition as the delivery on the part of one State to another of those whom it is desired to deal with for crimes of which they have been accused or convicted and are justifiable in the Courts of the other State.
According to Oppenheim, Extradition is the delivery of an accused or convicted individual to the state on whose territory the alleged criminal happens to be or the time being.
In Black’s Law Dictionary, extradition has been defined as “The surrender by one state or Country to another of an individual accused or convicted of an offense outside its own territory and within the territorial jurisdiction of the other, which, being competent to try and punish him, demands the surrender.
In simple words “Extradition” means when one jurisdiction delivers a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to the other’s law enforcement. It is a formal process that enables governments to bring fugitives abroad to justice when one nation surrenders an individual to another nation for prosecution or punishment for a crime committed in the nation which has demanded the extradition.
The Extradition Act of 1962, Section 2(d), defines an “extradition treaty” as a pact made by India with a foreign state, outlining the extradition of fugitive criminals.
In the complex scenario of international relations, extradition stands as a formidable tool, seamlessly merging legal doctrines with diplomatic intricacies. At its core, extradition is the formal process through which one nation endeavours to secure the surrender of an individual accused or convicted of a crime within the jurisdiction of another nation. This legal mechanism transforms into a crucial diplomatic instrument, fostering international cooperation to uphold justice on a global scale.
Extradition transcends the boundaries of individual nations, embodying a collective pursuit of justice that spans the globe. The process hinges on the principle of reciprocity – a cornerstone of diplomatic relations where nations extend cooperation to facilitate the apprehension and prosecution of individuals evading the reach of the law. The foundation of international cooperation is laid through bilateral or multilateral agreements between countries.
These agreements, often detailed and comprehensive, outline the terms and conditions under which extradition requests can be made and honoured. They serve as the legal procedure guiding diplomatic interactions, fostering a collaborative environment where nations unite against the common threat posed by transnational criminals.
The very essence of extradition rests upon mutual agreements that delineate the procedures and obligations involved in the surrender of a fugitive. These agreements act as legal roadmaps, facilitating a seamless transition between legal systems while respecting the sovereignty of each nation involved.
Whether through bilateral treaties or multilateral conventions, nations come together to codify the rules governing extradition. These agreements establish the groundwork for a reciprocal relationship, where each participant is assured that, in the pursuit of justice, their counterpart will extend the necessary support.
In essence, extradition becomes a testament to the interconnectedness of nations in their pursuit of a just and secure world. It is a diplomatic tool that not only upholds the rule of law but also reinforces the bonds forged through shared values and a collective commitment to combating cross-border crime. As nations navigate the complex paths of extradition, they play a vital role in weaving a global fabric where justice transcends borders and knows no limits.
Diplomatic Channels for Global Justice
The pursuit of global justice is a multifaceted endeavor, and diplomatic channels play a crucial role. These channels offer avenues for dialogue, cooperation, and conflict resolution, ultimately aiming to uphold human rights, address inequalities, and promote peace and security.
Here’s a breakdown of some key diplomatic channels for global justice:
- Embassies and Consulates: Embassies serve as the primary diplomatic representation of one country in another. Ambassadors, who head embassies, are the highest-ranking diplomatic officials. Consulates, on the other hand, focus on providing services to citizens and facilitating trade and cultural exchanges.
- Diplomatic Missions: In addition to embassies, countries may have other types of diplomatic missions, such as high commissions or permanent representations. The type of mission often depends on historical, cultural, or regional factors.
- Ambassadors and Diplomats: Ambassadors are the highest-ranking diplomatic representatives and serve as the key communicators between governments. Diplomats, including lower-ranking embassy staff, engage in negotiations, provide information, and represent their countries’ interests.
- Bilateral Diplomacy: Countries engage in direct diplomatic relations to address specific bilateral issues, negotiate agreements, and foster mutual understanding. Bilateral talks can take place at various levels, including head-of-state summits, ministerial meetings, and working-level discussions.
- Multilateral Organizations: International organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), and regional bodies, provide platforms for multilateral diplomacy. Countries collaborate on global issues, peacekeeping efforts, and the development of international law through these organizations.
- Diplomatic Conferences and Summits: Diplomatic conferences and summits bring together leaders from multiple countries to discuss and negotiate specific issues. Examples include the G7, G20, and climate change conferences, where heads of state and diplomats address global challenges.
- Treaties and Agreements: Diplomats negotiate and draft international treaties and agreements to formalize commitments between countries. These legal documents cover a wide range of subjects, including trade, defense, environmental protection, and human rights.
- International Organizations and Alliances: Countries collaborate within international organizations and alliances to address common goals. Examples include NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) for defense cooperation and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) for regional collaboration in Southeast Asia.
Formal Intergovernmental Institutions:
- United Nations: The UN serves as the primary platform for multilateral diplomacy, with bodies like the General Assembly, Security Council, and Human Rights Council addressing various justice issues. Treaty negotiation, peacekeeping missions, and human rights monitoring are some key functions.
- International Criminal Court (ICC): Established to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the ICC represents a significant step towards international accountability for gross human rights violations.
- Regional Organizations: Organizations like the African Union, European Union, and Organization of American States play vital roles in promoting regional justice and security, often through conflict resolution initiatives and human rights advocacy.
Informal Diplomacy and Track II Processes:
- Dialogue Forums and Track II Initiatives: These non-governmental platforms bring together diplomats, academics, and civil society actors to engage in informal discussions and negotiations on pressing justice issues, often complementing formal processes.
- International Humanitarian Law and Mediation: Principles of international humanitarian law guide diplomatic efforts during armed conflicts, while mediation and facilitation techniques play a crucial role in peacebuilding and conflict resolution.
- Advocacy and Civil Society Engagement: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and activist groups actively push for global justice through lobbying, campaigning, and raising awareness about human rights abuses and injustices. They often collaborate with diplomats and policymakers to influence agendas and shape policies.
Principles Governing Extradition:
The principles governing extradition are often outlined in treaties between countries or are based on customary international law. Here are some key principles governing extradition:
A. Reciprocity and Mutual Support:
The Principle of Reciprocity stands tall as a cornerstone governing extradition. At its core, this principle dictates that extradition is not merely a legal process; it is a reciprocal act, fostering a sense of mutual support among nations in the realm of law enforcement.
Extradition becomes a manifestation of diplomatic collaboration, reflecting the belief that nations must extend support to one another in matters of justice. This reciprocal nature forms the bedrock of international cooperation, creating a framework where each country’s commitment to upholding the rule of law finds resonance in the actions of its global counterparts.
Basis for Collaboration: Diplomatic Leverage in Extradition Decisions
The extradition process is not confined to the strict confines of legal statutes; it is a nuanced interplay of law and diplomacy. Diplomatic gestures assume a important role in influencing a nation’s decision to extradite a fugitive. Beyond the legal intricacies, acts of diplomacy, such as tariff relaxations or the enforcement of foreign judgments, can significantly sway the scales in favour of cooperation.
Diplomatic collaboration becomes a powerful lever in extradition proceedings, showcasing the interconnectedness of legal and political realms. The willingness to extend courtesies in the diplomatic arena can become a decisive factor in securing the cooperation necessary to bring a perpetrator to justice. It underscores that extradition is not solely a legal obligation but a testament to the broader spirit of international collaboration and goodwill.
B. Legal Principles:
1. Double Criminality:
The foundation of extradition is built upon the principle of double criminality. This fundamental tenet asserts that for extradition to proceed, the alleged crime must be recognized as an offense in both the requesting and territorial states. It ensures that there is a harmonized understanding of the nature and severity of the act in question.
2. Double Jeopardy:
A shield against duplicity in legal proceedings, the principle of double jeopardy protects individuals from being tried for the same offense twice. However, certain conditions must be met for this protection to apply, adding a layer of legal complexity to extradition considerations.
3. Principle of Speciality:
Once extradition is granted, the Principle of Speciality comes into play, circumscribing the prosecuting authority in the requesting state. It dictates that the individual may only be tried for the specific offense for which extradition was granted, preventing overreach beyond the agreed-upon scope.
In navigating the intricate intersection of reciprocity, diplomatic collaboration, and legal principles, nations sculpt a path towards a shared commitment to justice. Extradition emerges not just as a legal process but as a testament to the symbiotic relationship between nations in upholding the rule of law on the global stage.
Provisions Governing Surrender or Return of Accused or Convicted Persons from Foreign States under the Extradition Act, 1962
Section 19: Mode of Requisition or Form of Warrant for Surrender or Return
Section 19 of the Extradition Act, 1962 delineates the mode of requisition or the form of warrant for the surrender or return to India of an accused or convicted person situated in a foreign state. In cases where Chapter III does not apply, the Central Government is empowered to make a requisition to the diplomatic representative of that foreign state in Delhi or to the government of that state through the diplomatic representative of India in that state. Should neither of these modes be convenient, the requisition may be made in an alternative mode settled by arrangement between the Government of India and that foreign state.
Section 20: Conveyance of Accused or Convicted Person Surrendered or Returned
Subsequently, Section 20 addresses the conveyance of an accused or convicted person surrendered or returned by a foreign state. Under the warrant of arrest issued in the concerned state, such an individual can be brought into India and handed over to the relevant authority for lawful proceedings.
Section 21: Limitations on Trial for Certain Offenses
Additionally, Section 21 stipulates that an accused or convicted person surrendered or returned by a foreign state shall not be tried in India for offenses other than the extradition offense for which the surrender or return took place. Exceptions include trying the individual for a lesser offense revealed by the facts proven during the process of securing surrender or return, or if the foreign state has given its consent for prosecution in India. This safeguards against subjecting the individual to multiple trials for the same offense and ensures adherence to the principles of extradition.
Challenges and Human Rights Concerns:
Human Rights Scrutiny
The extradition process, extending beyond legal intricacies, encounters challenges and human rights concerns, particularly regarding the living conditions and fair treatment of the accused in the requesting state. Nations grapple with the imperative to ensure that accused individuals are treated in accordance with international human rights standards during the course of extradition proceedings and subsequent legal processes.
Dual Criminality Challenges
A prominent challenge arises in the form of dual criminality, where complexities emerge from differences in legal frameworks and societal norms between the requesting and territorial states. Navigating these challenges requires a nuanced understanding of legal disparities and a commitment to upholding the accused individual’s rights while ensuring compliance with extradition principles.
Power Imbalances and Political Interests
The effectiveness of diplomatic channels can be hampered by power imbalances between states, as well as competing political interests that can impede progress on certain issues.
Implementation and Compliance
Reaching agreements through diplomatic channels is only one step. Ensuring effective implementation and compliance with international norms and agreements remains a significant challenge.
Accountability and Access to Justice:
Holding perpetrators accountable for human rights violations and ensuring access to justice for victims are crucial aspects of global justice, but diplomatic channels may not always be sufficient to address these challenges effectively.
Case Studies: Extradition Through Diplomatic Channels:
Vijay Mallya Case:
The case of Vijay Mallya, the former owner of Kingfisher Airlines, highlights the challenges in extradition proceedings. Accused of defaulting on loans totalling over Rs. 9,000 crore, Mallya left India in 2016 and is currently in the United Kingdom. The Indian government’s attempts to extradite him have faced legal complications, with diplomatic channels playing a crucial role in navigating the complexities of the extradition process.
Nirav Modi Case:
In the case of Nirav Modi, a diamond merchant accused of defrauding Punjab National Bank of approximately Rs. 6498 crores, extradition proceedings have been delayed. Legal arguments and concerns about the risk of suicide have been raised, showcasing the multifaceted challenges addressed through diplomatic channels.
Mehul Choksi Case:
Fugitive Mehul Choksi, wanted in India for his alleged involvement in a Rs. 13000 crore fraud in Punjab National Bank, has utilized corrupt practices to delay extradition proceedings. His case underscores the importance of diplomatic channels in addressing challenges arising from political considerations and corrupt influences.
Conclusion
In the ever-connected world, extradition acts as a vital tool where diplomacy and justice intersect. The journey from extradition initiation through legal scrutiny to the final executive decision is a delicate dance between national sovereignty and global cooperation. Real-world cases like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, and Mehul Choksi highlight the intricate nature of this process, where legal complexities, human rights concerns, and diplomatic negotiations come into play.
Despite the challenges, diplomatic channels remain essential tools for advancing global justice. By leveraging formal institutions, informal processes, and civil society engagement, the international community can strive towards a more just and equitable world.
Extradition isn’t just about following legal steps; it’s a collaborative effort among nations to ensure criminals don’t escape justice. The challenges, from dual criminality to human rights issues, underscore the importance of clear rules and international standards. In essence, extradition represents a shared commitment among nations to uphold the rule of law globally, ensuring that those accused of crimes are held accountable, regardless of borders.
