The US approach to extradition is unusual. Even without extraordinary rendition. In extradition the concept of specialty prevents a requesting state from prosecuting an extradited person for offences other than those for which they were surrendered. Without specialty, extradition becomes transportation, request someone for anything, then prosecute them for anything. That’s why treaties have provisions for refusal where offences do not have dual criminality or on political or human rights grounds. A person should not be extradited for theft and the prosecuted for terrorism for instance. However, the US treats speciality differently to most states. The majority of US Circuit Courts hold that individuals have no standing to invoke specialty. Only the surrendering state can object. It is therefore a state to state mechanism. Compare this with Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition. European courts recognise that specialty is a protection for the individual, not merely an inter-state arrangement. Whilst the surrendering state must consent to prosecution for additional offences, the extradited person can challenge violations directly. This isn't academic. The German Constitutional Court refused US extradition in the Adem Yilmaz case (28 January 2019) precisely because US courts, require the surrendering state to protest specialty violations before defendants can raise them. The German court held: "The defendant must be able, in his own right, to invoke the rule of speciality in the United States." In the UK, the Court of Appeal overturned Jack Shepherd's conviction for a Bail Act offence in after he was extradited from Georgia for the speed boat killing. Georgia had not consented to the additional charge. The court held the conviction was a nullity, even though Shepherd himself had consented to extradition, admitted the offence, and the warrant referenced the breach of bail. Specialty still applied. In the Maduro case he has not even been subject to extradition so Specialty does not function at all.  In less political cases lawyers are very precise with language in order to determine what their client faces. In theory Maduro might protest at the changing of the charges but in practice the US have steamrollered international law. Some will say they have done it for the right reasons but it sets a miserable precedent. Credit unsplash | 15 comments on LinkedIn

Why do extradition treaties exist? Venezuela shows us exactly why. Extradition is a legal process. It requires a treaty between states, often judicial oversight, and some proof that the requested individual has committed an offence recognised as criminal in both jurisdictions. The requested state retains the right to refuse if the evidence is insufficient, if the offence is political, or if fair trial guarantees cannot be assured. Extradition respects sovereignty because it requires consent. Extraterritorial rendition, or to call it what it is, kidnapping, bypasses all of this. It involves the forcible removal of an individual from one state's territory without that state's consent. There is no judicial process, no treaty framework, no opportunity for the requested state to assess the legitimacy of the request. It is, in essence, a violation of territorial sovereignty dressed up as law enforcement. The US operation in Venezuela is extraterritorial rendition, not extradition. So was the seizure of Manuel Noriega from Panama in 1990. So was the removal of Manuel Zelaya from Honduras in 2009 via a US military base. Why does this distinction matter? Because extradition reinforces the rule of law between states. It acknowledges that sovereignty is mutual, that legal processes must be respected, and that no state, however powerful, has the unilateral right to enforce its criminal law on another state's territory. Extraterritorial rendition does the opposite. It asserts that military capability trumps legal process. It treats sovereignty as optional. It establishes a precedent that the powerful can simply take what they want, when they want, regardless of international law. This is not about whether Maduro, or Noriega, or anyone else committed crimes. It is about whether we resolve disputes through law or through force. When states abandon extradition in favour of extraterritorial rendition, they undermine the very legal frameworks that are supposed to govern international relations. The moment we accept that kidnapping is a legitimate tool of foreign policy, we accept that international law applies only to those without the power to resist it. | 25 comments on LinkedIn

The US approach to extradition is unusual. Even without extraordinary rendition. In extradition the concept of specialty prevents a requesting state from prosecuting an extradited person for offences other than those for which they were surrendered. Without specialty, extradition becomes transportation, request someone for anything, then prosecute them for anything. That’s why treaties have provisions for refusal where offences do not have dual criminality or on political or human rights grounds. A person should not be extradited for theft and the prosecuted for terrorism for instance. However, the US treats speciality differently to most states. The majority of US Circuit Courts hold that individuals have no standing to invoke specialty. Only the surrendering state can object. It is therefore a state to state mechanism. Compare this with Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition. European courts recognise that specialty is a protection for the individual, not merely an inter-state arrangement. Whilst the surrendering state must consent to prosecution for additional offences, the extradited person can challenge violations directly. This isn't academic. The German Constitutional Court refused US extradition in the Adem Yilmaz case (28 January 2019) precisely because US courts, require the surrendering state to protest specialty violations before defendants can raise them. The German court held: "The defendant must be able, in his own right, to invoke the rule of speciality in the United States." In the UK, the Court of Appeal overturned Jack Shepherd's conviction for a Bail Act offence in after he was extradited from Georgia for the speed boat killing. Georgia had not consented to the additional charge. The court held the conviction was a nullity, even though Shepherd himself had consented to extradition, admitted the offence, and the warrant referenced the breach of bail. Specialty still applied. In the Maduro case he has not even been subject to extradition so Specialty does not function at all.  In less political cases lawyers are very precise with language in order to determine what their client faces. In theory Maduro might protest at the changing of the charges but in practice the US have steamrollered international law. Some will say they have done it for the right reasons but it sets a miserable precedent. Credit unsplash | 15 comments on LinkedIn

Why do extradition treaties exist? Venezuela shows us exactly why. Extradition is a legal process. It requires a treaty between states, often judicial oversight, and some proof that the requested individual has committed an offence recognised as criminal in both jurisdictions. The requested state retains the right to refuse if the evidence is insufficient, if the offence is political, or if fair trial guarantees cannot be assured. Extradition respects sovereignty because it requires consent. Extraterritorial rendition, or to call it what it is, kidnapping, bypasses all of this. It involves the forcible removal of an individual from one state's territory without that state's consent. There is no judicial process, no treaty framework, no opportunity for the requested state to assess the legitimacy of the request. It is, in essence, a violation of territorial sovereignty dressed up as law enforcement. The US operation in Venezuela is extraterritorial rendition, not extradition. So was the seizure of Manuel Noriega from Panama in 1990. So was the removal of Manuel Zelaya from Honduras in 2009 via a US military base. Why does this distinction matter? Because extradition reinforces the rule of law between states. It acknowledges that sovereignty is mutual, that legal processes must be respected, and that no state, however powerful, has the unilateral right to enforce its criminal law on another state's territory. Extraterritorial rendition does the opposite. It asserts that military capability trumps legal process. It treats sovereignty as optional. It establishes a precedent that the powerful can simply take what they want, when they want, regardless of international law. This is not about whether Maduro, or Noriega, or anyone else committed crimes. It is about whether we resolve disputes through law or through force. When states abandon extradition in favour of extraterritorial rendition, they undermine the very legal frameworks that are supposed to govern international relations. The moment we accept that kidnapping is a legitimate tool of foreign policy, we accept that international law applies only to those without the power to resist it. | 25 comments on LinkedIn