The demise of the political offence exception in extradition law international documents, statutory case law and the Canada-India extradition treaty.

Abstract

Extradition is one legal procedure which can and has been utilized to combat terrorism. The political offence exception (p.o.e.) is an accepted legal doctrine which is a part of extradition law. This thesis examines the trend toward the limiting of the p.o.e. doctrine in the context of efforts to combat international terrorism. In other words, this thesis examines the trend to view acts of terrorism as strictly common crime and no longer regard them as legitimated political crime. The trend to limit the p.o.e. is illustrated through an analysis of international conventions, treaties and related documents. This thesis also reviews British, American and Canadian statutory case law in which the p.o.e. is raised. This analysis illustrates the practical application of the trend to limit the p.o.e. Finally, the 1987 Extradition Treaty between Canada and India is used as a case study example. This thesis includes an examination of the social and political process which led to the eventual negotiation of this treaty. Interviews with some members of the Canadian negotiating team and a search of Canadian parliamentary debate on the subject were conducted. The Canada-India case study acts as a case in point toward the limiting of the p.o.e. The analysis of international agreements and statutory case law illustrate that the p.o.e. is being limited, but ambiguity still exists in both definition and interpretation of terrorism and the p.o.e. doctrine. The examination of the social and political context within which the Canada-India Extradition Treaty was created demonstrates that changes to the law and its interpretation are not apolitical, but they are affected by social and political climate. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)