In cases involving large interests, there is an appeal from the consular to the higher courts of the state.
In the East registration of the head of the family at the consulate is necessary to obtain consular protection. Local statutes provide for the execution of treaty stipulations as to consular jurisdiction.[189]
(_b_) =In Egypt mixed courts= were inst.i.tuted in 1875. This system, arranged by convention, has received the a.s.sent of nearly all the European states and of the United States.[190]
The majority of the judges in these courts are foreigners, and the courts have competence over cases against the Egyptian government, over civil and commercial matters between foreigners and natives, and between foreigners of different nationalities. Jurisdiction for other matters remains in the consuls. These courts have been the subject of much discussion and great difference of opinion.
-- 65. Extradition
Extradition is the act by which one state delivers a person accused of crime committed beyond its borders to another state for trial and punishment.
Many of the Continental states maintain that extradition is a duty binding upon all civilized states, on the ground that the prevention of crime which would result from certainty of punishment is an object to be sought by all for the general good. Grotius, Vattel, Kent, Fiore, and many other authorities maintain this position. Bluntschli, Foelix, Kluber, G. F. de Martens, Pufendorf, Phillimore, Wheaton and the majority of authorities make the basis of extradition the conventional agreement of treaties.[191] The large number of extradition treaties of the last half of the nineteenth century has made the practice general.
Occasionally a state has, in the absence of treaties, voluntarily surrendered fugitives from justice as an act of courtesy. The extradition of Tweed by Spain in 1876 was an act of this kind.[192] Such cases are not common, however,[193] and it is safe to derive the principles from the general practice as seen in treaties.
(_a_) =Persons liable to extradition= vary according to treaties. It is the general practice to surrender on demand of the state in which the crime is committed only those who are subjects of the state making the demand. This is the general rule of the Continental states. As Great Britain and the United States maintain the principle of territorial penal jurisdiction, it is customary for these states to uphold the idea of extradition even of their own subjects.[194] The practice is not uniform in the relations of these states to other states, as is shown in their treaties. The South American and Continental European states hold that their own citizens are not liable to extradition.
A large number of the modern writers are in favor of the extradition of subjects in the same manner as aliens, and it is evident that the drift of international practice, as shown by the treaties of the last quarter-century, is toward the refusal to grant protection to a subject who has sought refuge in his native state after committing a crime abroad.
In case the accused whose extradition is demanded is a citizen of a third state, the practice is not uniform, though the best authorities seem to favor the granting of the extradition only after communication with and a.s.sent of the third state, on the ground that the state to which the subject has fled is responsible to the third state for its treatment of him. This practice has been followed in many European treaties.
Ordinarily, not all criminals are liable to extradition, though treaty stipulations may cover cases usually excepted. Those accused of political crimes have, since the early part of the nineteenth century, been more and more generally exempt from extradition. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century few treaties have been made which do not make political criminals specifically non-extraditable. Political crimes accompanied by attacks upon the person of the sovereign or of those holding political office or position are not, however, in the above category, but are usually extraditable.
(_b_) Even when an accused person is extradited there are =limitations= as to the jurisdiction of the state to which he goes. The trial must be for the offense or offenses enumerated in the treaty. For example, a treaty between two states enumerates among extraditable crimes murder, and does not enumerate larceny. A fugitive from one of the countries is accused of both murder and larceny. The country surrendering the criminal would not permit the trial of the criminal for any other crime than murder, until the criminal should have had opportunity to return to the state from which he was surrendered. For many years Great Britain claimed that a person surrendered in accordance with an extradition treaty should be tried only for the specific offense for which he was surrendered. The United States desired to include other offenses provided the person had been once surrendered. This position of Great Britain was accepted by the treaty of July 12, 1889.[195]
(_c_) =The conditions necessary= for a claim for extradition are: (1) that the crime shall have been committed within the territorial or maritime jurisdiction of the state making the demand, (2) that there be sufficient evidence of guilt to establish a case, and (3) that the application be from the proper authority and in the proper form.[196]
(_d_) The =procedure= in cases of extradition is based on definite principles. As it is an act of sovereignty, it must be performed by agents of the sovereign person, who for this purpose, although generally engaged in other functions, are executive officers.[197] The general rule is that the demand for extradition shall be made through the ordinary diplomatic channels. In colonies and under special circ.u.mstances an officer of first rank may be the medium of the demand.
The person demanded may be placed under provisional arrest pending the full proceedings of extradition.[198]
Reasonable evidence of the ident.i.ty of the person and of the facts of the crime must be furnished by the state making the demand.
In case a person is demanded by two states, his native state and a third state in which he has committed a crime, it is customary to grant the request of the state in which he has committed the crime.
When a person is demanded on the ground of separate crimes committed in both states as above, if the crimes are equally grave, the request of his native state is granted. Sometimes, however, when the third state offers to surrender the fugitive to his native state after he has paid the penalty of his crime, the request of the third state is granted.
When the crime committed in one state is more grave than that committed in another, the request of the state maintaining the graver charge is granted.
When states other than the native state request the extradition of a fugitive, the state receiving the demand may take into consideration the gravity of the offense and the probability that a given state will, after securing justice, make it possible for other states to prosecute their claims. In cases of equal gravity priority of demand usually determines the course of action.[199]
If the person demanded is accused of a crime in the state of refuge, the demand for his extradition may be refused pending his trial in the state of refuge.
Many other questions arise which complicate the actual procedure in cases of extradition, but these belong mainly to the realm of _private international law_.
-- 66. Servitudes
Servitudes in international law const.i.tute a restriction upon the exercise of the territorial jurisdiction of a state in favor of one or more states.
(_a_) =International servitudes= are:--
(1) _positive_, implying that a state is under obligation to permit within its territory another state to exercise certain powers, as by the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, Art. XXIX. "The administration of the maritime and sanitary police, both at Antivari and along the coast of Montenegro, shall be carried out by Austria-Hungary by means of light coastguard vessels;"[200]
(2) _negative_, implying that a state is to refrain from certain acts, otherwise customary, as "Montenegro shall neither have ships of war nor flag of war."[201]
Among the _positive servitudes_ are: those obligations of a state to allow within its own jurisdiction the exercise of political or administrative authority by another state, as in the execution of judicial or police regulations; those obligations to allow the exercise of military authority, as in military occupation of a portion of the territory or the pa.s.sage of troops. Among the _negative servitudes_ are: those obligations of a state to refrain from exercising within its own jurisdiction certain political or administrative authority which might be exercised, if the servitude did not exist, as in the exemption of the citizens or corporate persons of certain states from certain acts of jurisdiction or taxation; those obligations to refrain from military acts, such as the limitation of the army or navy to a certain number, or the obligation not to fortify a certain place.
(_b_) There are also servitudes which may be called =general=, because binding alike upon every state in favor of all others, such as the innocent use of territorial seas.[202]
CHAPTER XII
PROPERTY
67. +Property in General.+
68. +State Property in International Law.+
-- 67. Property in General
The term "property" has been used in varying senses by writers upon international law. By virtue of the fact that a state has jurisdiction over all its public property there has sometimes been confusion between the two terms, but jurisdiction may, and does, extend to persons and things of which proprietorship cannot be affirmed by the state.
In the sense commonly used in international law the property of a state is held to be all the lands and water within its limits. Within this territory the state has rights to the exclusion of other states, and upon the land area may exercise the right of eminent domain.
The idea of property in this international sense is distinct from that of private ownership, which is merely relative and depends upon the regulations of the state; indeed, private property may be seized for the debts of the state.
A state may hold absolute possession of such objects as are capable of appropriation, as lands, buildings, and other material resources for public purposes. In some cases the state owns the railroads, telegraphs, mines, etc. In time of war such property receives treatment somewhat different from that of private property, and in time of peace it may receive special recognition, _e.g._ houses of amba.s.sadors.
-- 68. State Property in International Law
Hall outlines this subject as follows: "A state may own property as a private individual within the jurisdiction of another state; it may possess the immediate as well as the ultimate property in movables, land, and buildings within its own territory; and it may hold property in its state capacity in places not belonging to its own territory, whether within or outside the jurisdiction of other states."[203]
Property of the first cla.s.s falls under the local law of the state in which it is. Property of the second cla.s.s may come within the scope of international law in time of war. Property of the third cla.s.s may come with the scope of international law both in time of peace and of war.
CHAPTER XIII
DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN TIMES OF PEACE
69. +General Development.+
70. +Diplomatic Agents.+ (_a_) Historical.