CHAPTER 7 STATE JURISDICTION INATIONALITY; EXTRADITION; ASYLUM] ——_[{£_{£_{__ Es IMPORTANT POINTS /ISSUES & CASE LAWS A. State Jurisdiction (1) Territorial Jurisdiction. @) Ju based on Nationality, Protective principle. (8) Universal Jurisdiction. ‘rial Jurisdiction of State, Case: ICJ: 2002: The Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) B. Nationality (1) Nationality and Domicile, ‘State of MP. () Statelessness. (6) Rights and Duties of Aliens. ©. Extradition (1) Need (Reasons) for extradition. (2) Meaning/Concept of extradiction. {a) Extradition v. Deportation, (b) Extradition v. Rendition. (e) Extradition v. Exciusion/Expulsion, (8) Customary Law Basis. (4) Treaty Law. (5) Nature of Obligation. (Is Extradition a legal duty of a State?) and Human Rights. and the Principle of Non-inquiry. (8) The Savarkar’s Case (1911) (France v. Great By oy72 Public International Law (@) Leading Cases on Extradition. ‘The Sucha Singh's Case. (b) The Dharam Teja’s Case. (©) The Naval Officer Extradition Case. Case: 2011: SC: Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra. D. Asylum (1) Meaning of Asylum (Asylum v. Extradition). (2) Right to grant (Basis off Asylum. (8) Reasons for Asylum, (4) Right of Asylum, (8) Kinds of Asylym, (a) Territorial Asylum. (b) Extra-territorial Asylum. Case: 1950: ICd: The Asylum Case (Columbia v. Peru). SCANNER Discuss methods for the acquisition ofthe nationality with speci reference to implication of ICJ in the Nottebohm Case, [UPSC, 1993] ity and no one shall be arbitrarily at @.2. Everyone has a right to nat deprived of his nati The “theory of ti an absolute a3. law and this by no means . Explain with the help of| practice of States. [UPSC, 1991] . Examine the concept of sovereign State in international law. What| duties are imposed on a State in respect of treatment of aliens? {UPSC, 1991] Define Extradition, State the essential condition of extradition. Explain the relationship between extradition and asylum, {UPSC, 1992] - Distinguish between territorial asylum and extra-teritorial asylum. [uPSc, 1993] A Municioal Court allows the extradition of a person who murdered his wife in his country. The same Cou tallow extradition of a foreigner, who took part in the px ising in his county. Examine the legal questions involved and bring out the distinction, [uPsc, 1995] An Australian ship collided with a Cuban Vessel on high seas and caused death of 5 Cuban Officials on board the Cuban Vessel, State Jurisdiction 73 po se 12, 2. 13, @.15. 2. 16. 17. a, 18. . ‘K’ a foreign sovereign assuming a fake name, enters into a - Xand Y we ____ enc & Sentenced to death. tn appeal t The Australian Captain was Prosecuted in the Cuban Court for, manslaughter, He challenges the jurisdiction of the Cuban Court. Discuss the rule of international law on the question. [UPSC, 1993] Short Notes: Domestic Jurisdiction of State. [UPSC, 1994] contract of marriage in England, with a woman ‘Q’. Later 'K’. makes a breach of contract. In a suit by 'Q’, K pleads that he being a sovereign is entitled to immunities. Discuss the legal question & decide. [UPSC, 1995] subjects, entered inthe service ofthe Chinose governm }ey were on board a Chinese warship anchored in the territorial ter of Hongkong X killed Y. X is, prosecuted for murc in British local Court in Hongkong. X| challenges the juris ‘of the Court to try him, Decide. [UPSe, 1995) ‘Short Notes: Servitude (State Territorial Sovereignty). [UPSC, 1995] ‘X’ an American citizen publish in Texas an article defamatory to a Mexican Ci *’ was in Mexico on a temporary visit and arrested by n_government for prosecution. The U.S, Government protests against i. How will you decide? [UPSC, 1996] He caused two explosion in a cafe in Sti Lanka, After committing the offence, X fled to England. Sri Lanka demands extradition of X. X claims that the nature of his crime was. Political and fore he would not be extradited. Discuss the validity of “ feferring to the iple of non-extradition for political | crimes and exceptions theret [UPSC, 1996) The theory of “extr is not the correct basis of the immunities and privileges which the diplomatic agent enjoy. Do B lew. Give reasons, [UPSG, 1997] tum, [upsc, 1998} 'ylum stops, as it were, where extradition oF [UPSC, 1999} ‘On board a Chinese public ship, while it was on high seas, a cabin boy, who was a British national, committed the crime of uurder. The Captain of the ship ordered the crew to take the ship nearby Hongkong territorial waters. Hongkong was then a British colony. He took assistance of the Hongkong authorities i sted. There he was tried and in the} the Chinese authorities fully cooperated. At the end of the| _he was convicted & sentenced to death. In appeal he14 Public International Law contended public ship. only a Chinese court had the jurisdiction and the Hongkong court could assume jurisdiction only if China waived its immunity and that in the facts of the case China had not done it. Decide giving reasons. [UPSG, 1999] Q. 18. States ‘A’ &'B' are at war with each other. Examine the effects of the war on the ex [UPSC, 2000] Q.20. Every personis sut . examine the Statement. STATE JURISDICTION Meaning of “Jurisdiction” connection between the subject and reasonable interests of the juris observed. It should also be pointed out that the sufficiency of grounds Jurisdiction isan issue normally considered relative to the rights of other States and not as.a question of basic competence, Civil Jurisdiction: The civil law is the concem of private international nw or, more correctly, the conflict of laws, though in the last resort civil State Jurisdiction jurisdiction may be backed by the sancti international law confines itself to cri ia matter of civil jurisdiction the municipal courts apply private international law in those cases where a foreign element is involved. A State has a right to exercise civil jurisdiction in respect of all those persons who are found in its territory. Thus, civil cases of aliens may also be decided by it if they are found within the I its territory. They cannot claim tion from the exercise of such jurisdiction except so far be able to show either Tegard to the treatment of aliens, a State mi Circumstances maintain system of courts empowered to decide ¢ and, in doing so, prepared to apply private internation: in cases containing a foreign element. cipal Courts are often reluctant to assu concerning a foreign element and adhere tothe territorial principle conditioned by the facts in issue and supplemented by criteria relating to the concepts of allegiance or domicile and doctrines of prior express submission to the Jurisdiction and to tacit submission, for example on the basis of the of property in the State of forum, Excessive and abusive assertion of civil jurisdiction could lead to international responsibility or protests as ultra vires acts. inal Jurisdiction: With the increasing speed of communication and cated structure of commercial organisation and the growing international character of criminal activities, there has been a noticeable trend ion on the basis of criteria other than that of generally, persons or things actually in the territory sovereignty must affect the Stat basis of jurisdiction is the normal working rule. International le or no limitation on the jurisdiction which a particular State may arrogate to itself. Although nothing prevents a State from overstepping these limits, prudence demands that it would not assume Jurisdiction on acts with which it has absolutely no concern, Practical convenience, mutual interest, and constraints of realities of situation have, however, led the States to derogate from the absolute principle of territorial jurisdiction. While, on the one hand, a State exempts a number 9f persons, things and institutions from its jurisdiction; on the other, jurisdiction sumed on certain acts, matters and persons which lie beyond its territorial its.16 Public International Law ‘The discussion which follows concems the general princip municipal courts may exercise jurisdiction in respect of acts criminal under the law of the fo only acute when al , ‘another State, are involved. The question only achieved prominence after about 1870, and the appearance of clear prin. prominence in the sources ofthe subject of mu i empiricism and adherence to national policies, and also by the variety of the subject-matter, Several distinet principles have nevertheless received varying degrees of support from practice end opinion. BASIS / DOCTRINES OF JURISDICTION tice no one principle is adopted by the State in exerci territorial supremacy, and the State to which of personal supremacy. Thus, though a issue arising in the ease. Ordinarily jurisdiction must follow upon functions lines. For example, in matters where personal status ferent claims are being made by the parties. In Surinder Kaur igh, AIR 1984 SC 1224, the Supreme Court has rightly held f Laws recognizes, and in any event, prefers ‘State Jurisdiction a losest concem withthe well being ofthe spouses and welfare of the off springs ‘of marriage, The above has been insisted by the cours of differ (@) PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION nited received universal recognition, and is but a single Titoriality ofthe sovereignty, the sum of legal te has. In the case of crime, the principle has a including the convenience of the forum volvement of the interests of the State where the ‘ican decisions statements occur of one State. A crime may be commenced in one State and consummated in jother. A criminal may manage to fly off for the preparation of the crime in other State and its completion in another State, In fact there mey be many 2 such a crime, the crime might have been in one ‘haps the criminal may be of Country or of another. In such cases the exercise of jurisdiction may become i culties, the terri rritorial jurisdie ‘subjective or (b) the objective territorial principle. ly adopted by ) the Geneva Convention 8g Currency (1929); and (i) the Geneva it Drug Traffic (1935). Under these ‘Which are parties to the Conventions are under an offenders if either the preparation of conspiracy to ied in the Conventions ies, even though the ultimate offences are not leted in their territory. (fi) such offence produces harmful consequences to the soc side cir territory. This principle is recognised both by the English and American the Lotus Case (1927), a French Steamship, “the Lotus” on the high/open sea, The id eight Turkish nationals on board lost the28 Public International Law Port, and the officer ofthe French ship was placed under arrest without secution proceedings were started It was contended on behalf of the accused that the Turkish Criminal Court had no jurisdiction over him, ‘The plea was over-ruled and the officer was convicted and sentenced, The French Governtnent made diplomatic representations and demanded the release of the French officer or the transfer of the case to the French Court. Then ia no means coincides with the territorial sovereignty.” Exemptions/Immunities from Territorial Jurisdiction term of his office, is totally exempt from both, criminal and civil jon in the State where he is accredited. (2) Embassies: Embassies situated in other States are immune from the in recognition of his very special status as holder of his ) Foreign Armed Forees: Armed force ofa State remains in the foreign territory on several occasions in the service of their home State, Such forces remain under State Jurisdiction 19 he juris’ ofthe State to which t belong. This ifacrime has been committed 9f these forces he cannot be punished by the (5) Foreign Warships and their Crews Men of war being in fact a part lof the armed forces of a State are deemed as State organs like the armed Horces. The territorial waters and parts of the States are as a general rule open to men-of-war, unless they are not excluded by special International treaties, or special municipal laws. (@) NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE Nationality, as a mark of allegiance and an aspect of is for jurisdiction over extra \cidence of dual nationality create parallel ju double jeopardy, many States place limitations on the tis often confined to serious offences. Inany of allegiance is clear enough. However, the territorial and nationality principles together may create the incidence of concurrent jurisdiction and possible double jeopardy unless the jurisdiction on the as to show thatthe State fact many countries like Mexico, Brazil, Italy have made this principle a part and pace! of its country though Great Dritain and USA have7.10 Public International Law not adopted this rule. This the various bases of jurisdi State Jurisdiction 2 itory and the State will be powerless ould be taken to be the basic right If from such prejudicial acts done by foreigners with them in any manner they like. Any action taken by the State against a foreigner sometimes is ineffective long as the foreigner remains outside its territory. If the action remains ineffective it does not mean that the State does not have competence. If & national remains in a foreign country, the action taken c jon of the State to take action against a fo depends upon its competency and not upon its effective execution. The jurisdiction to pass order is different from the power to execute or effectuate that order, It serves @ useful purpose in that it permits a combat extra-terrtorial acts done by aliens which have an adverse eff its welfare or security, outside the State by deal On the basis ofthis principle, a State may exercise juris of offences whi are regarded Jurisdiction over aliens for acts done abroad which affect the security of the State, a concept which takes in a variety of political offences, but necessarily confined to political acts. Curreney, immigra offences are frequently punished. The UK and the USA allow signi exceptions to the doctrine of territoriality though without express upon the protective principle. Thus, courts of the former have punished alicns for abetment by acts on the high seas of illegal immigration, and perhaps considerations of security helped the House of Lords in Joyce v. D.P.P. (194 AC 347, to the view that an alien who left the country in possession of British passport owed allegiance and was guilty of treason when he subsequently broadcast propaganda for an enemy in wartime, Nati In $0 far as the protective principle rests on the protection of concrete interests, itis sensible enough. The interpretation of the concept ofp however, may vary widely. It is undoubtedly open to abuse if rational grounds for the exercise of (@ PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION (@) The offences subject to the apy Certain offenders are the offenders of humanity aind mi such that their cons world. By the universality princ ic the State against . to the custody of the persons com’ f States have adopted, norm: ns, @ principle jurisdiction over acts of non-nationals where the circumstances ies in the need to protect a State from the prej s of an alien when such activities are not, for instance, unlawful ‘The Universal juried regardless of the place own preserv recognized in International Law. If such a protective jurisdic contrary to the are treated as internat712 Public International Law 4 State Jurisdiction 73 ‘und can justly be regarded as an attack on the international legal system. by @ Court in Israel of Bichmann, a war criminal, for war crimes and crimes tion which exists irrespective of place where against humanity, thereby overruling objections that Eichmann’s actions ime takes place and the nationality of the person / # O°curred in Europe during the Second World War before the Siae of Isrel Jjarsdiction may be exercised by any State inorder totry | Was actually founded and that his offences were committed against people -ged to have committed such crimes. who were not citizens of that State. ‘0 crimes where the Stats “Uf LEADING CASE LAWS THE ARREST WARRANT CASE [The Congo v. Belgium; ICJ Rep. (2002)] Facts: An errest warrant was issued against Mr. Yerodia (without noting his current capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs of Congo) by a Belgian Municipal Court in April, 2000. It describes the “place of commission of the offence” as “the Democratic Republic of Congo” and the date ofthat alleged offence as “August 1998”, The arrest warrant characterizes the acts alleged therein as criminal law offences being “crimes under international law” constituting grave breaches causing harm by action/omaission to persons or ty of war crime has been 4 property protected under the Geneva Conventions, 1949 and “Crimes against embodied in Geneva Conver 1949 ie. on prisoners of war, by pens rest warrant then cites the Belgian statues concernive the protection of sick and wounded personnel's and ship ‘violations of international humanitarian lave The eee ted by Protocols I and I of 1977, those acts which the Belgian Court imputes to Mr. 2), Eichmann was a German officer during “4% Yerodia. These are said to have occurred at a time when the democratic as esponsible for the wholesale massacre 49 Republic ofthe Congo was experiencing serious unrest caused by a military the Second World War, he ran away from n by Burundian troops, with combatants Argentine, He was forcibly brought from luded among the rebels. The Congolese Argentine to Israel and put up for population conducted operations to hunt down not only the rebels forces but also Tutsi Civilians, arbitrarily arrested and massacred. Mr. Yerodia, who ‘af that time was Principal Secretary to the President of Congo, is alloged to have provoked the continuation of those massacres by televised statements, He is alleged to have called on “his brothers” to “rise up as one ae o throw the common enemy out of the country.” citizens, and by a person : fein the course of duty on behalf ofa foreign country, conflicted 7. Navure ofthe claim made by the Congo: The rational Law, and exceeded the powers of the Is ee contended that the prosecuti requested to declare biomca mesaciaatens of Congo, seeking. detention pending a request for extradition exceeded the ju Serie oa: also contended that there must «44.4 Belgium for alleged crimes constituting “serious violatfons of international and inthe anes oa Sit andthe person vo commited te cime, MU Mao ana a ue ares athe ast waa ne tod inthe absence ofa sknowledged linking pony, tas ulravires onthe 4 awful ands ing part of th ; eee eee Legal Issues: Whats the legal postion regarding immunity from eriminal upon the principle of universal iction in upholding the conviction 9g /'*isdiction and the inviolahility ofan incumbent Minister for Foreign A.fairs?Public International Law State Jurisdiction 1 very terms of the arrest warr extent of these immunit ‘That immunity and inviolability protect the individual concerned against any act of authority of another State which would hinder him in the performance of his duties. In this respect, no distinction can be drawn between acts performed by a Minister for Foreign Affairs in an “official” and those claimed to have been performed in a “private capacity”, or, for that matter, between acts performed before the person concemed assumed office as Minister for Foreign Asfairs and acts committed during the period of office, Thus, ifa Minister for Foreign Affairs is arrested in another State on a criminal change, he or she is clearly thereby prevented from exercising the functions of his or her office. Belgium argues that ‘Ministers for Foreign Affairs’ do not enjoy such immunity when they are suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes Pp humanity. The Court points out thet, after having careful Article 7 of the Law provides that the Belgian Courts shall have jurisdiction. 4% State practice, including national legiset in in respect of the offences provided for in the present law, wheresoever they of national higher courts, such as the House of Lords, it has been unable may have been committed. For offences committed abroad by a Belgien deduce from this practice that there exists under customary international law against a foreigner, neither a complaint by the foreigner or his family nor 1g immunity from eriminal jurisdiction tets for Foreign Affairs, ‘The rules governing the jurisdiction of national courts must be caref distinguished from those governing jurisdictional immunities, The immunities under customary international law, including those of Affairs, remain opposable before the courts of a fore those courts exercise an extended criminal jurisdi {international conventions on the prevention of certain serious c we benetit, but to ensure the effective perk responsibility. The Court then speils out the circumstances in which their personal benefit, but to ensure the effective performance nui cite aeaieunyy Gone ee oe functions on bebalf of their respective States. In order to determine for Foreign tee bpaesteunieacaiiat Cees116 Public International Law ‘State Jurisdiction aT 5 Decision: After examination of the terms of the arrest warrant, the . ee plat aindapeehaipisebhoale ein me shim and the person is bound to follow the rules enacted ty ‘that State, on the other hand, domicile denotes the residence of the person, Consequently, a person may acquire nationality through domicile. Pep auauugsind oeBoigiee countries there are different rules and processes in regard tothe aca Coreapet tetany whch Me, oftaonliy rough domi InD.P. Joshi v. State of MP, AIR 1955 SC 334, the SC of India explained inged the immunity from criminal jurisdicti the meaning of domicile in the following words: “Domicile has reference to fed by him under international law. the system of law by which a person is governed, and when we speak of thatthe purpose of the intetional circulation of the domicile of country, we assume that the same system of law prevails all over : that county. But it might well happen tha laws relating to succession and Mt. country baccarat arrest of Mi] arsiage might not be the same allover the country and that different areas in ee te alos wuts the State might have different laws in respect of those matters. In that case ; : cach area having a distinct set ofaws would itselfbe regarded as country Sr nulan ena tk Conga een for the purpose of domicile. Domicile of a person means his permanent 1 Court finally considers tha its finding thatthe arrest warrant was 1 that its issue and cizoulation engaged stitute a form of satisfaction which parents are residing, or the country to which his allegiance or the country of the infant's nati Nationality and Citizenship: on the other hand, denotes the law. In other words we may say particular State, but itis not necessary that all the nationals may be of that particular State. Citizens are those persons, who possess rights in that State. Buta person who possesses only nationality in apartcular State may not possess all political rights. When he is out of dividual is Known by the nationality ionality, like citizenship, is essentially a escent, being bom to pets who are is nationals and sometimes, cording creature of mimicipal law and is not the same as domicile which denotes de7.18 Public International Law to both, or according to ive principle. Experts commonly regard these criteria under international law. (@) By Birth (us So jonality is conferred to a person by many States on the basis of birth. All those persons whose birth take place within of a State acquire the nationality of that State. The above principle is called jus soli, The United Kingdom, the United States and many ‘States of Latin America follow the principle of fus soll (b) By Descent (Jus Sanguinis): Nationality of a State may also be acquired by a person on the basis of the ity of either parents. Thus, a child may become a national ofthat State of which his parents are nationals, is known as jus sanguinis. Germany and France confer on the basis of this principle. The USA and the UK also recognise addition to the principle of jus soli. So is the case nality acquired subsequently: ty, the UN General Assembly adopted -d Women, 1957. Under the er the celebration nor the of marriage between one of its nat by the husband during marriage, (© Resumption: A person who has lost or by any other reasons, may acquire the nationality of the same State again, The acquisit called reintegration or resuraption. Section 8, Para 2 of the I ship Act of 1955 permits the minor, and not 1 adults, to resum age of majority upon apy . parents, The procedure for restoration is Citizenship Rules, 1956. indian citizenship due to thi down under Section 20 of the State Jurisdiction 719 (@) Subjugation: A person may acquire nationality through subjugation after conquest. When a part of the territory of a State or a State itself is subjugated by another State, all the inhabitants of the territory:become the nationals of the latter State. When Austria was annexed by Germany, all the nationals of Austria became the nationals of Germany. Indian Citizenship Act of 1955 under Section 7 lays down that if any territory becomes a part of In automatically become citizens of India from the date speci which may be issued by the Central Government. Thus, when G and Diu became a part of India, Goa, Daman and Diu (Citizenship) Order was issued on 26th March, 1962. (©) Cession: When a part of the territory of a St I the nationals of the former acquires the natio applies in the case of exchange of stitory. Acquis itton of matory by options was widely used in 19th century he interests of inhabit from the consequences without their assent, (g) Registration: A person may acquire nationality of a State registration. The process of registration may be different from one State to another depending upon the laws of that State Loss of Nationality (1) By Release: In some States law provides that the ased from the nationality of the in certain States law may provide that if of that State without seeking prior permission of the government ol ‘employment in another State, he will be deprived of his nationalityPublic International Law }) Long Residence Abroad: State lavs of many States contain provis jon that if a person resides for n long period abroad, (4) By Renunciation: A person may also renounce his nationality. The snunciation arises when a person acquires nationality of more than In such a condition, he has to make a choice as to of which country, remain the national need fe xy come to possess double nat eg, dueto conflicting of jus soil and jus sanguinis principles by States, or in certai permit them to retain prematital 9f the country where one habitually resides or of the country to which one appears to be in losely connected is given precedence. Convention on the 1957 provides that an alien wife will retain naturalisation. Convention on Elimination of n against Women, 1979 also: “the States Part every one has a rigl ty and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1 enables the Stateless to acquire the nationality of the country of birth ot of one of the parents at birth, and loss of nationality would not take place until acquisition of another nationality. Rights and duties of aliens Aliens have no right at intemational law to be admitted t0 a country. Most States claim to exclude all aliens at will as an essential attribute of State Jurisdiction 72 pject to regulation ion by bis parent State, right. National standard of reatment isall an alien may claim, so long ashe is not discriminated agains. i mnduct) and deport an alien, like right to refuse ident of State’s territorial sovereignty, which shall, ised in a manner as not to cause unnecessary injury to him. and Political Rights, 1966 provides that an alien lawfully in the territory of a State party to the Covenant may be expelled pursuant to ‘decision reached by law, given the reasons for expulsion and an opportunity to represent and review his case by competent authorities except where ing reasons of national security require otherwise. Detention prior to nn should be avoided unless dictated by circumstances, and he may not to be deported to a country or territory where his person or freedom would bbe threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality or political views: nor should he be exposed to unnecessary indignity. EXTRADITION (Deportation, Rendition & Expulsion) Need (Reasons) for Extradition n extends over offences committed ‘the common experience of all the ‘countries that often a criminal committing an offence in one country flees to another country to escape detection and thus seeks to avoid conviction and the consequential punishment. Chances of such an escape are high ‘where States have a common land frontier, ¢.g., asin case of India and Pakistan, ‘This poses a threat in all civilized countries to a fai i i sustaining the Constitutional norms of Rule of law. This is clearly an affront to authority of the territorial State besides compromising its maintenance of law and order. The State of refuge may not be interested in prosecuting, the offender, partly because no violation ofits law is involved, and partly due to lack of evidence in its possession. ese reasons that the expedient of extradition was tno serious crime goes unpunished. To remedy anomalous and unjust situation, Extradition has been evolved by way of122 Public International Law international treaty obligation which ensures a mode of formal surrender of fan accused by the one country to another based on reciprocal arrangements, Extradition, thus, consists in a request, generally through diptomatic channels, tate on whose teritory the crime was committed, to surrender back the fugitive so that he may be tried and punished, Mesning/Concept of Extradition a rather complex jurisprudential zone as it itself various trajectories of apparently conflicting tion has been derived from two Latin words ex and fugitives’. I under the Extradition Act, 1962. Extradition may be defined as the surrender of an accused of a convicted person by the State on whose territory he is found to the State on whose territory he is alleged to have commit to have been convicted ofa crime. i accused of, or has been convicted of, c he happens forthe time to be. In contemporary practice, extradition means a formal process through ‘which a person is surrendered by one State to another by virtue of = treaty, reciprocity or comity as between the respective States. The participants in such a process are, therefore, the two States and, depending upon value- Perspectives, the individual who is the object-subject of the proceedings, To a large extent, the processes and its participants have not changed much in the course of time but the rationale and purposes of the practice have changed, and asa consequence so have the formal aspects of the proceedings, Extradition and Deportation: The request for extradition of a person Uistinguishes extradition from other measures such as banishment, expulsion and deportation where an undesirable person is forcibly removed. Extradition terest of the expelling State, needs the consensual co-operation ofa least two States, \whereas deportation isa unilateral action apart from the duty ofthe receiving extradition applies to criminal to any forcign national on a number of grounds, of a person takes place only on the request of another State, exp order of a State which prohibits a person to remain inside the terri ordering State. State Jurisdiction 123 Extradition and Rendition: Rendition signifies surrender of an offender State under ad hoc arrany iprocity, or in absence of an extradition treaty, or where offence is not as extraditable under a treaty. Deportation oF refusal of asylum may Wve the effect of rendition, although not so in the strict sense. rent from exclusion, d from staying in one part of a Sovereign State, Asa result ofsuch orders, sometimes deserters or absentees from Armed Forces of a particular country are retumed to the Custody of Armed Forces of the Country to which they belong. Both deportation and exclusion basically are non. exercise wher is based on a consensual and the requested State, to in cases of serious offences lation are designed to combine speed and justice. ‘takes place under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and extradition under the Extradition Act, 1962. Extradition is done by India only when conditions under the Act are satisfied. Customary Law Basis ies extradition has come to be governed either by individual municipal legal systems or by conch Whatever rules of customary i ‘re deductions from the pract t International law ex present inal: Under customary ical offenders are not extradited ai ns of humanity. However, the extra has always remained controversial because of the difficulty in defining a “many writers consi Purpose; again others recogni was committed both from a entirely a matter for the Courts of the requested State to decide. Inthe absence of precedents,7.24 Public International Law ‘the courts are bound to draw upon the approach taken by other States in the mat Extraditi llowed for military criminals also. crimes also persons are not extradited. ‘he Rule of Speciality: An accused is extradited prosecute that person only for the erime for ‘extradited. This is known as the rule of soeciality. In U.S. v. Ruscher, America got Rauscher extradited from Britain on the ground that he had fled to Britain after murdering a fellow servant in an American both the countries (the country claiming the country extraditing). This is called the rule of cegarding extradition are not well established ic which does not come exclusively under courts ofa State, but at the same Law because it governs the relations ral treaty or Convention, tera treaties wherein provisions law by which they have ugreed ‘State Jurisdiction 125 between themselves to surrender the accused ot convict to the requesting State in case such a person comes under the purview ofa given treaty. Bilateral ‘The Extradition Act, 1962 lays down the law and procedure on extradition that, there existed the 1903 Act, which supplemented the n Act, 1870, and the Fugitives Offenders Act of 1881. The 1962 Act stipulates that all ex Government of India by a diplomatic representative of the foreign State and (on receiving such a Central Government may issue an order to any magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the offence. The magistrate then issues an order of arrest against the fugitive criminal and shall inquire the case on the basis of evidence. If he is satisfied that there is no prima facie case against the fugit support of the requisition of the foreign State, he sl Fee him. On the other hand, if @ prima facie case is made him, the magistrate shall make a report and forward it to C overnment. On receipt of such a report, the Central Government may issue a warrant for the custody and removal of the fugitive criminal and for his delivery at a place and to a person to be named in the warrant. A magistrate the arrest of a foreign fugitive criminal present within his jurisdiction and report the matter along with the evidence or certified copics to the Central Government (Section 9). India and UK Pact on Extt tish Home Secretary offere an extradition treaty wi regarding extradition and confiscation of funds of terrorists and drug kers ‘operating from Britain. This step is being taken to deter drug traffickings and terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir. The Treaty is subsequently signed. The ‘treaty was ratified in Novem cooperating with each other for a terrorism. In several cases in past, America has cooperated with India in respect. of extradition of criminal who after committing crime had fled away to that country. On 25th June, 1997 India and America entered into a treaty on extradition, It is a moder treaty containing exhaustive provisions relating to new trends on extradition, India and Germany Pact on Extradition: With a view to combat crime, India and Germany signed an extradition treaty at Berlin on 27th June, 2001,7.26 Public International Law ‘The treaty will enable the two countries to extradite person wanted in “extraditable offences.” Le. the offences which are punishable under the laws of both the States and punishable by a term of imprisonment of not ess than ‘one year. Extradition shall also be granted in respect of an attempt or conspiracy g, abetting, inciting or participating as an accomplice in of an extraditable offence. India and Canada Pact on Extradition: Desiring tomake more effective the cooperation of the two countries inthe suppression of crime by making Provision for the reciprocal extradition of offenders, and recognising that ‘concrete steps are necessary to combat terrorism the Governments of India ‘and Canada signed an extradition treaty in February, 1987. Accordingto Article 1 of the treaty, each contracting State agrees to extradite to the other, subject to the conditions of this treaty any person who being accused or convicted of ‘an extradition offence as described in Article 3, committed within the teritory ‘of one State, found in the territory of the ot > Whether or not such offence was committed before or after the coming into force of this treaty and France Pact on Extrad n treaty in January, 2003. Prior to the signing of the treaty France hhad apprehensions that the terrorists or criminals to be extradited to India ‘might get death penalty. India removed such apprehensions by giving an Undertaking that terrorists extradited to India would not be given death penalty, Nature of Obligation (Is Extradition a Legal duty of a State?) Grotius was of the view that a State of refuge has a duty either to punish the offender or to surrender him tothe State seeking his retum. The principle of prosecution or extradition’ was recognized by him as a legal duty of the ‘State where the offender is found. ‘The legal duty of the State is based on natural law. Vattel also had a similar view. He ré International Law. In modem times, a in the absence of extradition treaties, International Law does not recognise any general duty of States in respect of extradition. Extradition depends on the provisions of the existing © treaties. In Factor v. Laubenheimer, (1993) 280 US 276 the Court, les of International Law recognize no right to extradition apart from treaty while a government may, if agreeable to its own Cor and laws, voluntarily exercise the power to surrender a fugitive fro State Jurisdiction 121 tothe country from which he fled. The legal right to demand hi and the correlative duty to surrender him to the demandi ‘when created by treaty.” There is no universally recognised prac ere ean beno extradition except under a treaty, for, some countries grant extradition without a treaty, ‘The Es Chapter ition Act, 1962 governs the law relating to extrad of the Act deals with the return of fugitive criminals fr wealth countries with extradition arrangements. Chapter Il deal ion of fugitive eriminals to foreign States and to Commonwealth to which Chapter III does not apply. Under Section 4 of the Act, a n for the surrender of a fugitive criminal of a foreign State can be the Central Government. The Central Government may, i fit, order for magisterial inquiry. Under Section 7(4), if the magistrat ‘the opinion that a prima facie case is made out in support of the requisition of the foreign State or Commonwealth country, he may commit the fugitive criminal to prison to await the orders of the Central Governme: and shall report the result of his inquiry to the Central Government on the receipt ofthe said report and statement, the Central Governme: the opini.mn that the fugitive criminal ought to be surrendered to the foreign State or Commonw: intry, it may issue a warrant for the custody anc removal ofthe fugitive criminal and for his delivery at a place and to a person ition of the words “extradition offence” in Section 2(c) in relation toa foreign State other t fy State, an offence ‘the second Schedule”: Thus the second i States other than treaty ay, therefore, be Schedule enumerates offence in rel States or in relation to Commonweal aly, it would be wrong to 5 part from a treaty. As remarked by the Su lia in State of Madras v. C.G. Menon, AIR 1954 n with foreign States is, except in exceptional cases, governs treaties ot arrangement made, Extradition and Human Rights In the context of extradit Ww, which is based on international treaty the emerging Human Rights Movements and at the same time the need to curb insnational and international crime. The conflict between these twogamering more international support and awareness for norms and the need to tackle transnational crime. es sunt vp inte lading decison of European Cou af international dimension, itis inereasingly in the it suspected offenders who flee abroad should Extradition and the Principle of Non-inguiry ‘The extradition law has to be an amalgam of international and national law. Normally in extradition law the requested State is to follow the rule of Non-Inquiry which means that the requested State is not to normally make inquiry about ¢ system in the requesting State. In ate of Maliarashira, (2011)3 SCC (Cel) 125, on a complaint being made by Abu Salem in the Court of the requested country, the Courts of Portugal avvait the decision of this Court. The actual conduct of trial ofite jurisprudence followed in| the well developed norm both ad in America. There is nothing unjust in sutrendering to & foreign country a person accused of having committed a crime there for trial in the ordinary way in accordance with the system for the administration of prevailing in that country simply because that system is substantially different from ours with different checks and balences. The judicial process ign country must not be subjected to finicky evaluations against governing the I Public International Law ught to be resolved by expanding the network of | A fair balance has to be struck between Human Rights | State Jurisdiction 729 has been done, independent of the position taken by the requested State, is a debatable issue. It is a part of the larger debate about the position of an individual asa subject of international law, and the obligation of States towards individuals. This is pertinent here because onc of the claims made by Abu with respect to the erosion of his rights that exist by way of the international commitments India has made through the doctrine of specialty embodied in Section 21 of the Extradition Act. His complaint is that by trying him for some offences which are designated as ‘lesser offences” and calling them as completely similar to the ones mentioned before the Portuguese authorities, as well as by separating his trial from the other accused, the Government of India has violated its commitments in the extradition Fequest, and therefore has violated the rights with which Abu Salem had been extradited. ‘The answer to this complaint obviously lies in the prineiple of non- inquiry which prohibits questionit the requesting State. That f this Court, However, non-inquiry is not am absolute principle. In a given tion, the requested State may question the procedures in the requesting if they are prima facie contrary to fundamental principles of justice and there is a high risk of the fugitive being prejudiced by the process of extradition. THE SAVARKAR’S CASE (1911) ‘The conditions and the terms in the Extradition Treaty should be generally fulfilled. In connection with extradition, the Svarkar’s Case (1911) involving Great Britain and France may be noted. Savarkar was an Indian revolutionary. As an Indian and a British subject, he was being transported in the boat Morea to India for the purpose of his trial on a charge of high treason and abetment of murder. During his voyage on July 8, 1910, he dramatically escaped by jumping into the sea. The guards immediately noticed him and ing and swimming under a shower of bullets, he reached the port and climbed the quay. He was pursued by marine guards and seized by a French policeman, on French soil, who, in execution of his duty, handed him over to the Captain wi extradition proceedings. Thereafter, French Government req British Government to return Savarkar on the ground that the rules, concerning extradition were not observed as French police handed over Savarkar to Britain without extradition pro . In fact, France demanded that Great Britain should ask for his ‘ina formal way in confirmity with intemational law. Great Britain refused. The matter was referred to Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague.730 Public International Law The Arbitral Tribunal has been called upon to decide the following uestion: should Savarkar, in conformity with the rules of international law, be restored or not be restored by Government to the French Government, The Court observed that, itis manifest of recourse to fraud or force in order hhad taken refuge in foreign territory and that there was not, inthe circumstances of the arrest and delivery of Savarkar to the British Authorities and of his removal to India, anything in the nature of a violation of the sovereignty of France, and that all those who took part in the matter certainly acted in good faith and had no thought of doing anything unlawful, In ts award, the Court admitted that an irregutarity had been committed bby handing over Savarkar to Britain. However, the Court decided in favour of Great Britain by holding that international law does not impose, in such circumstances, any obligation on the power which has in its custody a prisoner, to restore him because of a mistake committed by the foreign agent ‘Who delivered him up to that power. This decision has been severely criticised by the jurists. In their view, it was not based on the sound pri LEADING CASES ON EXTRADITION In the Sucha Singh's Case, ater having murdered the Punjab Chief t Pratap Singh Kairon in 1956, Sucha Singh absconded to Nepal, In of the extradition treaty between India and Nepal, on the request of the 'verament of India, the Government of Nepal extradited Sucha Singh after ing proceedings egainst him in accordance withthe law of Nepal. Nepal did not regard the crime as @) In the Dharam Teja’s Case, Dharam Teja was the Managing Director of Jayanti Shipping Corporation. He fled from India and was charged for embezzlement of crores of rupees. He was traced request of the Government ‘ground that there was no London, and on the requ. initiated against him in the court in England. On completion ofthe extradition proceedings, he was extradited to India where he was charged for the offence of embezzlement of money of the Corporation and convicted. @) In the Naval Officer Extradition Case (1975), Commander Ebrahim ‘of indian Navy was charged by the Government of India with misappropriating Rs. 13 lakhs of the Naval Prize Fund while he was functioning.as the Judge (Advocate-General) of the Indian Navy in the eatl The matter was referred to the CBI the respon: inistering Rs. 70 lakhs of brize fund. An ex-sailor madea complaint that he had State Jurisdiction 731 not received his share of the prize money. On enquiry the Naval Headquarters discovered that the fund never subjected to audit and that he had destroyed all records. A charge-sheet was filed by CBI against him in '968. But he could not be apprehended as he fled from the country along is family. Since then the Indian authorite to find out his had arrested ly 1975, the New York, Judge passed the extradition orders after accepting the Indian Government pleas in this regard. Thus be has been extradited to India and faced trial of the charge of misappropriation of Rs, 13 lakhs of the Naval Prize Fund. LEADING CASE LAWS Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra th the task of transportation of illegally smuggled ar ammunitions, their storage and distribution to other co-accused persons. Accused was declared ss a proclaimed offender in October, 1993. The ourt issued Non-bailable Warrant against appellanvaccused and Interpol so issued Red Corner Notice f 1 witne may be recorded against absconding accused persons in their absencs accordance with the provisions of Section 299, CrPC. In September, 2002, the appellant accused Abu Salem was d the Portugese Police at Lisbon on the basis of Red Corner December, 2002, the Government of India submitted a requ ion in several criminal cases. He was subsequently, extra m the grounds that he was involved in crimes under “the International yr the Sup; any offence other than those for which extradition was sought, that the appellant would not be73a Public International Law further extradited and that he would not be awarded death penalty or life i he was extradited based on the principle of was also tried for offences under the TADA Act, the Supreme Court of Portugal; aud (¢) a writ of prohibition probibiting the designated court from separating the trial of the writ other accused whose trial is stated to have been completed. Legal Issues to try in respect of offences which do not form dgment, by virtue of which he has been ‘Act, 1962 which stipulates the accused can be tried for the offences for which he has been extradited? (3) Whether there has been a violation of Rule of Specialty and of the solemn sovereign assurance given by the Government of India to the Government of Portugal regarding the trial of the appellant? Suppression of Terrorist Bombings” fore, he can be tried only for the offences which are related to the said Convention. This assumption cannot be sustained. Ifthe said claim is iso shows the ignorance of the accused/appellant towards the sued by the Government of India making the Extradition Act, Government of Portugal. And the Court has not merely on the basis of the Extradition Treaty but also on the basis of reciprocity. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Act, the Onder of the Govemment of India had been approved and published ensuring die regard principle of reciprocity. In view of the same, the claim of the appellar nat any substance, State Jurisdiction 733 Answer to the Ist Legal Issue: It is true that there is no Extradition ‘Treaty between India and Portugal. , the laws of both the countries Permit entertaining request for extradition from Non Treaty States also. ‘The extradition request was made to the Government of Portugal by the Government of India under the provisions of the Extradition Act ap to Non Treaty States i.e, Section 19 of the Act. Although the Com was also relied upon for the extradition, it was not Primary consideration for the request of extradition ws of reciprocity, The notification by the Government of India the provisions contained in the Extradition Act shall be apy of Portugal was issued keeping in view the sai ity. rocity. The provisions mn of the Court of Portugal approved the ay the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962 to the Republic of Portugal. No Courts of Portugal have mentioned in their orders that the accuse could not be tried in India for the offences for which his trial could take place as per the domestic laws of India, Answer to the 2nd Legal Issue: A bare reading of Section 21 of the Extradition Act would indicate that the accused Abu Salem can be tried for the offences for which he has been extradited. In addition, Abu Salem ean also be tried for lesser offence/offences in view of Section 21 of the Act disclosed by the facts proved forthe purposes of securing his surrender. Lesser offence means an offence which is made out from the proved facts and provides lesser punishment, as compared tothe offences for which the fugitive has been extradited, The lesser offence cannot be equated with the term ‘minor offence’ as mentioned in Section 222, CrPC. The Legislature has deliberately used the word “lesser” in Section 21 of the Extradition Act instead of the word “minor”. Thus, the punishment provided for the offence is relevant and ‘ot the ingredients for the purposes of interpretation of the term “lesser offence”. ‘The contention of the accused that he can be tried only for the offences covered by the said Convention is inisconceived in view of the fact that he ‘was extradited not only under the said Convéntion but also in the light of the principle of reciprocity made applicable through the application of the734 Public International Law Extradition Act to the Republic of Portugal. A complete reading of Article 2 of the said Convention makes it clear that ly with those accused Ll the conspirators and those who have constructive liability for commission of the substantive offences. Answer to the 3rd Legat Specialty and the Solemn S ‘There has been no violation of Rule of Assurance given by the Government of India.to the Government of Portugal regarding the trial of the accused/ appellant. The said assurance was given to the effect that the accused will not be prosecuted for the offences other than those for which his extradition has been sought and that he wi ‘There has been no violation of Rule of Spec all the provisions contained under the Extradit Act made applica respect of the extradition of Abu Salem. The Constitutional Court of Portugal has recognised and approved this principle of reciprocity and the applicability of the provisions of Extradition Act to Portugal. In view of this fact, provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act would come into operation ‘while conducting the trial of the accused and accordingly he can be tried for “lesser offences”, even ifthe same are not covered by the Extradition Decree since the same is permitted under Section 21 of the Extradition Act. No bar has been placed by the Portuguese Courts forthe trial of lesser offences in a ya: Both Governments have entered into an agreement menticnis the relevant offences and the accused/appellant was extradited to I face: been framed fit wel i Act. The offences with which the appellant has been additionally charged are lesser i.e. punishable with lesser punishment than the offences for which the appellant has been extradited. The extradition granted in the present case had due regard to the facts placed which would cover the offences with which the appellant has been charged. fences are disclosed by the same set of facts placed tof Portugal. The accused appellant has been charged within the permissible scope of Section orders. Consequently, all the appeals as be dismissed, State Jurisdiction 735 ASYLUM (Meaning, Kinds and Right of Asylum) Meaning The word asylum is Latin and derives from the Greek word ‘Asylia’ which ‘means invoilable place. The term is referred to shelter and protection inits own territory, extended, in its discretion, by a State on territory under its contro ‘who requests it. Thus asylum involves two elements. Fir is more than a temporary refu Protection on the part of the author asylum. These two elements distinguist Thus, ‘Asylum’ means refuge and active protection granted by a State to Person secking such a refuge and protection on the teritory under its c lon: The concept of asylum is very old and: States used to provide shelter 10 an alien {found in its territory, Butsince the last quarter ofthe L8th century the: al system has undergone a change for those persons who were accused of or convicted for a erime. Such persons were surrendered they belong, Thus, in those cases where long-standing led extradition. Thus, the institutions of extradition and asylum are contrary to each other in as much as where the asylum stops extradition begins. Once the territorial State (Stat the question of asylum does not arise at terzitorial State to the requesting State, not surrendered, but given shelter and RIGHT TO GRANT (BASIS OF) ASYLUM A State has a right to grant asylum to a person on the principl « sovereign right to control over the individuals found on its te the right of territor le | that the grant of asylum is a soverei States have complete freedom to put restrictions on their territorial Jurisdictional right by concluding treaties. Thus, ifa State concludes treaties‘grant asylum to such 1 also be imposed by grant asylum in respect of other inous crimes. However, the selfimposed limitation is a terrorist acts. The Security Council Resolution, 2001 shall deny safe heaven to those who finance, pl , Support or commit acts. Article 7 of the Draft Comprehensive Convention on stipulated that States Parties shall take appropriate y offence referred to in Article 2 REASONS FOR ASYLUM of many reasons, Firs the State of whose person asylum is granted is well studied because it normally affects the friendly relations of ‘two States despite a clear provision in the Declaration on Territorial Asylum State Jurisdiction 137 RIGHT OF ASYLUM Is asylum a right of a person? Under international law there does not exist any enforceable right ofa fugitive criminal to be granted asylum, although in the Constitutions of certain countries, the right of asylum is expressly recognised for persons fleeing from persecution on political grounds. Efforts hhave been made to create such a right of asylum fo uals, in place of discretion which the States enjoy at present. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prescribes the right “to seck and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”, which is not te be invoked in the case of prosecutions “arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the ‘Purposes and principles of the United Nations” (Article 14). /ever, be noted that the Declaration simply recognises the right not grant tight to receive asylum. The so-called . For itis the duty of itory from endangering the expeditions or by prepari ‘Common crimes against its Head, members of its Governmer In 1962, during a disc Rights in the Third Cor ‘unsuccessfully supported lopted a Declaration on Territorial 10 observe certain principles, stated tory. inthe Declaration are: that the asylum granted by 2 State to persons seeking refuse from persecution should be respected by all States, but in principle, asylum should not be granted to persons for whom there are well-founded reasons that they have committed crimes against peace, humanity or wat-crimes (Article 1); the principle of non refoulement, ic. the persons should not be rejected at the border, or ifhe has already entered the in which he seeks asylum, should not be expelled or deported, difficult738 Public International Law that State (Article 2). This principle has been put into practice in the case of Rwandan refugees. , the Declaration in itself does not create any enforceable rely a declaration. In an attempt to create such a jons, a draft Convention on Territorial Asylum was ‘and a United Nations Conference was held for its adoption from in 1977, but no consensus emerged at the Conference. The ‘prospects of its adoption in future also appear to be bleak. This confirms the unrestricted right of a State in the matter of granting or withholding i licies and practices. Although Is no corresponding duty of the State of refuge itself to grant asylum. KINDS OF ASYLUM asylum is said to have its legal basis in international law. (Q) Territorial Asylum i.e., for political defectors; 3 those who fear persecution in their own country, seck economic betterment but do not enjoy the status of immigrants. A person enjoying asylum may be referred to as an He may or may not be a refuge in accordance with the accepted def in international law or runicipal law. Article 14 of the UDHR, 1948 talks of individual's right to asylum. It ‘may be recalled that due to genocide and other atrocities committed by Pakistan State Jurisdiction in East Pakistan forced 48 tod Arles 31, 32 and 33 of the Refugee Convention of 1951, These incidents were followed by the emergence of Bangladesh. ed by it, and who are un be repatriated for the fear sr of persecution, fr example as happened Korean cot be respected by we declaration is not of binding character. Efforts vention at “the UN Conference on Territorial Asylum” at Get lid not bear fruit, although it was attended by 85 countries. Difference between Asylum and Refugee: An asylee is a person who is, ‘king shelter from a State; whereas refugee is a person whose claim has n sanctioned by the State. Therefore, an ceases and refugee emerges soon as the claim is evaluated and sanctioned. The three rights in this to the concept of asylum and refugee. Article basic human rights and connotes, “Everyone hi and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. Principle of Non-Refoulement: The principle of non-refoutem: ted by the Human Rights Commission. It reads: “No one seeking or ig asylum in accordance with the UDHR shou \ded fear of persecution endangering that territory.Public Internasional Law 4 State Jurisdiction 141 ‘This principle has also been incorporated in Articles 31, 32 and. 33 of the | A number of principles Refugee Convention of 1951 the right of diplomatic asy ‘contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account @ There is no gene t of diplomatic asylum existing under try OF presence, on refugees, who, coming directly from a international tay ife or freedom was threatened, enter or are present in ut authorisation, + The contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in tory save on grounds of national security or public order. ipported by State practice about the existence of ii) Under a special treaty between the territorial state and the State of refuge, itis admissible, (iv) Asylum may be granted in the consular or diplomatic premises as a ‘matter of agreement between the host and the sending State in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of terrtori freedom would be threatened on account of his race, 7 membership of a particular social group or political opinion. premises to if pursued by @) Extra-territorial Asylum because of extreme Asylum granted by a State not on its physical territory, but on its notional corruption in the territorial State, in order to tide over territory, like in legations (embassy and consular premises) in the physical nent threat temporarily. Because of of diplomatic territory of another State, or on warships, is called the extra-tertitorial asylum. premises, the surrendering of the criminal can be taken up by the ‘The granting of extra-territorial asylum being in the nature of a derogation ‘territorial State with the foreign State concerned. from the sovereignty of the territorial State, is given under some exceptional (6) Asylum in Consular Premises: The general principles relating to the aeet faecal, asylums in its Legation premises by a State bas tegation premises are also applicable to the grant of asylum in consular the effect of exempting the fugitive from the application of local law and 4 Denny! (©) Asylum in the Premises of International Institutions: Intemational Jaw does not recognise any rule regarding the grant of asylum in the premises . Temporary asylum may be granted in case of ce of terri Ww cannot accept such a situation except by express. wise asyl ternational practice and may possibly instances on the grounds of humanity in case of extreme danger to the individual s¢ ‘The following are the kinds of extra (a) Diplomatic asylum (Asylum in Legations): Inter refuge after committing a crime on shore, cannot be arrested by the local authorities and removed from the vessel in case the commander of the ship not recognise a general right ofa head of mission/embassy to asylum in |) refuses to hand over the fugitive. Some other writers, however, have ‘expressed. ofthe legtion as sucha step would prevent tertorial aw taking i} the view that such fugitives should be handed ener re tent police. Even ise and would invol from the sovereignty of that such writers, however, concede that asylum may be granted only on ‘humanitarian grounds in case where there is extreme danger to the life ofthe iduals seeking asylum, Asylum may also be granted to political offenders. ) Asylum in Merchant Vessels: Merchant vessels do not enjoy munity from the local jurisdiction and consequently asylum cannot be granted to local offenders in merchant vessels. f lomatic asylum involves a derogation from ithdraws the offender from the jurisdiction State and constitutes an intervention in matters which are 7 the competence of that State. Such a derogation from ignty cannot be recognised unless its legal basis is established in each particular case.”