• Corpus ID: 150504785

Double criminality in international extradition law

@inproceedings{Blaas2003DoubleCI,
  title={Double criminality in international extradition law},
  author={F. Blaas},
  year={2003},
  url={https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:150504785}
}

• F. Blaas
• Published 1 December 2003
• Law

The object of the thesis is to examine the content and status of the double criminality principle in international extradition law. The double criminality principle says a fugitive c annat be extradited unless the conduct for which his extradition is sought is criminal in both the requesting state and the requested state. This thesis is based on a study of sources of international law and domestic law and ideas presented in legal literature. The double criminality principle has developed over… 

The object of the thesis is to examine the content and status of the double criminality principle in international extradition law. The double criminality principle says a fugitive c annat be extradited unless the conduct for which his extradition is sought is criminal in both the requesting state and the requested state. This thesis is based on a study of sources of international law and domestic law and ideas presented in legal literature. The double criminality principle has developed over several centuries and it has been embraced by most states in one form or the other. The principle serves several purposes, of which the most dominant is the notion of state sovereignty. States apply the double criminality principle differently due to its multiple rationale. Legal literature has distinguished two main methods of interpretation, called interpretation in abstracto and in concreto. Whereas the in abstracto method focuses on the theoretical punishability of the conduct, the in concreto method attaches importance to all factual, personal and legal aspects. There are also ways of interpretation that are a combination of these two methods. Most states can be classified into one of the two main groups of interpretation, but in general most states have adopted a specific method of interpretation that is unique to each particular state. There is thus no uniform method of interpretation in international extradition law. This thesis attempts to determine whether the double criminality principle has become a rule of customary international law. Though most instruments on international or domestic extradition law include the double criminality principle, the strong disagreement among legal scholars as to the legal status of the principle leads to the conclusion that the double criminality principle is not a rule of international law today. This thesis contains an examination of whether the principle of double criminality can be classified as an international human rights norm. Though the principle of double criminality has striking similarities with human rights as it partly aims at protecting individuals facing extradition, there are also a number of aspects that distinguish the principle from traditional human rights. This is partly attributable to the fact that international extradition law is not the arena where general international human rights have developed. It is therefore concluded that the double criminality principle does not form part of international human rights law. Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za