The Practice of National and International Courts on Transnational Seizure: Is a Fair Balance between Human Rights and Accountability Possible?

Abstract

In the absence of or in order to circumvent extradition procedures States have often resorted to transnational abduction or informal surrender to ensure that criminal suspects residing abroad are brought to justice. This article will consider the implications of these devises for the world order and individual human rights through an assessment of the point of view of domestic and international courts which dealt with the issue of transnational seizure. Particular attention will be paid to the recent and important decisions delivered by the US jurisdiction in the Alvarez-Mechein Case under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the European Court for Human Rights in the Öcalan Case and the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Nikolic Case. The purpose is to determine whether the judicial practices under consideration could be deemed to attain a fair balance between accountability and the respect of fundamental human rights.