NCJ Number
73316
Journal
Revue de science criminelle et de droit penal compare Issue: 3 Dated: (July-September 1979) Pages: 471-485
Date Published
1979
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This article contends that expediency, not justice and respect for the human rights of political offenders, prompted the January 27, 1977 agreement on the suppression of terrorism which mandates the extradition of terrorists by all signatory powers.
Abstract
The European nations which signed the international agreement mandating the extradition of political offenders defined as terrorists are criticized for taking an unprecedented step of dubious legality because of a shared desire to protect the interests of their ruling classes against the rising threat of political change advocated by local and foreign militants by means of the perpetration of violent acts. The agreement counteracts the tradition of protecting political offenders against extradition to their native countries where they would face possible torture and execution except when their offenses are of exceptional gravity (i.e., the assassination of a head of state, crimes against mankind, and war crimes). Conferring a semblance of legality on the mandatory extradition of the perpetrators of politically-inspired violent acts was thus only possible by totally denying their political dimensions and defining such acts in terms of common crime. The depoliticization of terrorist acts is attached as a fiction and a juridical heresy: allegedly, its real motive is not to uphold the principles of international law but, rather, to protect the internal security of the signatories of the European extradition agreement. Only the evidence of the criminal intent on the part of the participants in a violent political protest, to kill and injure innocent bystanders unconnected with their cause (clearly an absurd and untenable claim) should justify the extradition of the protesters as common criminals. The January 27, 1977 Convention for the suppression of terrorism is seen as vulnerable, revealing legal ambiguities that seen to allow the signatory Nations to extradite only the terrorists with whose views they do not agree, thereby offering more dangers than guarantees for the cause of human rights. Footnotes provide bibliographic and legal citations, as well as an extensive commentary.