Encryption, anonimity and nemo tenetur in criminal (procedural) law.
The effects of gun control in the Western developed world from a legal perspective.
The legal protection of open source software in Belgian and Western European Law.
(In progress:) Human Rights in the law as an obstacle to the efficient combating of cybercrime.

Take your pick.

Oh boy, exciting times.

This was really great. Do you ever use these as a framework for essays or writing submissions in your classes?

I wish I could, it would save me a lot of time. Regular writing submissions is something that only a select few practicums / seminars employ in the Master's of law here. Most classes are usually a single exam at the end of the semester that makes up 100% of your grade (sometimes combined with a single paper to write). Even if they did, I haven't written of anything that is relevant to the classes I'm currently taking. I got my degree last year, but now I'm doing what's called a "specialised Master's in IT & IP law" program that you can only get into with a prior Master's degree in general law. Maybe if I end up doing a thread on intellectual property, personal data and privacy, cybercrime or anything IT law related I get to use some of it for my thesis, but that hasn't been the case so far.

Thanks for the feedback, by the way. I really appreciate everyone's comments, as it's nice to see that people are actually getting something out of the time I put into these. Much appreciated.

In light of Kupo's thread on the European resolution advising its member states to drop charges against Snowden and grant him asylum, I figured that the topic of extradition might be a good and very relevant one to cover in my next law thread. As usual, I will not be going in detail or cover too many particularities of specific extradition treaties. What this thread sets out to do is to provide a brief introduction to the basics of the laws and conventions regarding extradition, and to briefly give my own opinion on what might happen next in the Snowden saga.




Simply put, extradition is the requested surrender of an individual by one nation to another where that person is sought for the prosecution, trial or punishment for the alleged commission of a crime. In other words, if a person commits a crime in the territory of a country and then moves to another nation, the country where the crime was commited can request the other nation to surrender the person back so he can be prosecuted and tried.

The reasons for such a procedure to exist are obvious. One of the most fundamental guiding principles of international law is that of the sovereignty of nations. In this modern day and age, international law and global conventions dictate that it is generally unacceptable for one state to simply breach and violate this sovereignty of another nation's government and people to determine their own culture, policies and legal system. While certain exceptions most definitely exist, they only apply to certain extreme situations and are strictly regulated by the UN and other international organizations and conventions. The mere reason that one country seeks to prosecute and punish someone who allegedly commited a crime in their territory does not suffice for them to physically recover this person when he or she resides in a different nation.

As such, a criminal could very easily escape justice by simply moving to a different country and hiding behind the laws and government of this separate, sovereign nation. It is exactly this problem that gave rise to what is often described as the oldest form of international cooperation of criminal law: the procedure of extradition. International agreements on extradition have existed for thousands of years, going even as far back as the 13th century BC, and still play a crucial role in contemporary international criminal law.


While extradition was traditionally dealt with on an individual basis, countries quickly grew to recognize the importance and usefulness of longstanding and more generally applicable agreements. Currently, international extradition is regulated by mainly bilateral treaties. This means that two separate countries conclude a treaty with one another in which they set forth the procedures, formalities and conditions for mutual extraditions based on the principle of reciprocity.

What usually happens is that a country will first devise a national or federal law to lay the foundations of their extradition policy. The legislator will set forth a basic law that serves as a guideline for its all branches of government and their diplomatic relations with other countries. Basing itself on these general guidelines, the country's government will try to seek an agreement with a foreign nation on how they will extradite (alleged) criminals in the event that they would reside in one of both countries. This practice has led to an enormous web of bilateral treaties to form on a global scale, with certain countries being part of over 100 extradition treaties.

Once such a treaty setting out the conditions, circumstances and practical workings of the extradition procedure between those two countries has been established, it is up to the national governments and judicial systems to put these into effect. Once country A becomes aware that a person it is trying to prosecute, put on trial or punish is currently residing in country B, it will send a formal extradition request to this second country. There, its government will ascertain whether or not the person is actually residing in their territory before evaluating the specifics of the case against this person. If all the conditions for an extradition and none of the conditions barring it are met, they will apprehend the person and surrender it to the requesting state where he will be subject to the legal system of this country.


The situation in Europe is unique in the world, which is why it deserves its own little chapter. As opposed to the global trend of bilateral treaties between two countries, the European nations have come to employ larger conventions to which numerous member states are present and all in agreement on the same conditions. The European Convention on Extradition from 1957 was the first step in this particular process of harmonisation. One of its most notable characteristics is that it introduces a multilateral obligation to extradite suspects and convicts when certain conditions are met and none of the grounds of refusal exist.

Following this Convention, several Agreements and Framework Decisions were concluded in the late 90's and early 2000's. This turned the process of extradition from a governmental and political one to an entirely judicial procedure. The basic idea here is trust between member states that their fellow European nations will not violate the human rights of those they seek the extradition of. This is part of the general increasing trend of European cooperation in the fields of criminal justice.

The apex of this legal convergence was the creation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) by means of a notable 2002 Framework Decision. These arrest warrants are judicial decisions issued by the court of a member state to the Union with a view to the arrest and surrender by another member state for the purpose of criminal prosecution or the execution of a sentence. This is widely seen as marking the end of extradition and the beginning of surrender, as extradition is based on request while the EAW is a valid order in all member states. The political authorities no longer play any role whatsoever and several previous obstacles have hereby been removed. While this system has been proven to be effective in the EU where all member states operate on a basis of trust and are held to the same standards, it is unlikely that this will soon become a more global and international phenomenon. With foreign countries outside of the EU, the European member states still operate on the basis of bilateral extradition treaties.


As the details and particular conditions of international extraditions depend entirely on the individual national laws and bilateral treaties, there is no way I can cover all of their particularities in regards to conditions that bar extradition. However, a few general principles are almost universally present in these treaties.

• Requirement of dual criminality: in order to avoid having to surrender persons for actions that are only consider illegal in the other country, many treaties have a requirement of dual criminality. This means that the parties to the treaty are only bound to extradite people when their own criminal code provides for a penalty for that action.
• Ne bis in idem: also known as double jeopardy, this principle precludes a person from being prosecuted or convicted twice for the exact same offense. Oftentimes, the country requested to extradite a person can refuse to do so if they know that the person has already been convicted or tried for the same offense that the other state is requestion extradition for.
• Possibility of application of the death penalty or subjection to inhuman treatment: more often than not, a state can refuse to fulfill an extradition request if its government believes that by doing so they are putting the person in question at risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or a death penalty.
• Prosecution for certain crimes involving political or religious beliefs: a majority of countries refuses to extadite people when the requesting state seeks to prosecute them for political or religious crimes. This is usually done to ensure and protect the principles of fair representation and democracy, and to combat governmental corruption.
• Aut dedere aut judicare: on behalf of this principle, the state can refuse an extradition request when they choose to prosecute and try the person themselves. The most common reason for doing so is when states have included a clause prohibiting the extradition of their own citizens so that they can prosecute them themselves for their own courts of law.

First of all, a seemingly popular myth needs to addressed. According to numerous news papers, the EU recently decided to “drop charges” against Snowden. In reality, the EU has absolutely no competence to file charges against anyone. Criminal law is still a power that rests almost exclusively with the member states. So far, the only criminal law the EU itself is involved in is coordinating judicial cooperation between member states and harmonizing certain crimes by requesting that its member states criminalize certain behaviors and address them properly in their procedural provisions.

What the EU Parliament did do is pass a non-binding resolution on the matter, advising its member states not to criminally charge Snowden themselves and not to extradite him if he would reside in their territory and the US would request his surrender.

Now, what will this mean in practice? Unfortunately, nor I or anyone else is capable of answering this question right now. It is simply impossible to tell if any European country is actually going to grant him asylum and protect him against the US government. There are, however, a few things that could come of this.

Firstly, the EU does not have the power to directly command a member state to ignore one of its existing treaties. It has no legal basis of doing so and any such action would in all likelihood be met with great amounts of criticism. It is a near impossibility that any European country is planning on rescinding its extradition treaty with the US. This resolution in no way translates into a direct European binding order to protect Snowden from the American legal system and its charges brought against him.

However, this is the point where the theory of European Exceptionalism comes into play. No, this is not the same kind of European exceptionalism that claims that Europe is simply exceptional and superior to other parts of the world, but this is a theory of law that holds members of the EU to a higher legal standard of international behavior than other countries. Its member states are supposed to strive for excellence and uphold the ideals of democracy, progress and human rights as often and as thorough as possible. When they are applying the European basic treaties, the European Court of Justice can evaluate and monitor their actions. While unlikely, it is possible that this could result in repercussions for the member state who upholds certain treaties while neglecting higher standards that the EU employs.

The same principle applies to the competences of the European Court of Human Rights. In the groundbreaking Soering case, the Court warned the UK not to extradite an alleged criminal to the US because this person could've potentially ended up on death row and receiving the death penalty in America, which goes directly against the 6th and 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not unthinkable that a certain legal construct could come into play here just the same, preventing or reprimanding a member state for handing Snowden over to the US.

Finally, and probably the most likely, is the possibility that a member state simply employs a provision of its own extradition law, being one of the aforementioned exceptions. To illustrate this, I will present you all with the hypothetical scenario that Snowden would seek refuge in Belgium. Here you will find the Belgian law on extraditions, unfortunately in Dutch. As such, I'll translate the most relevant provisions.


As such, the Belgian government could potentially deny extradition on some of these grounds without breaking or jeopardising its treaty with the US. Even when the US prosecutor claims that the death penalty won't be sought, it is entirely up to the Belgian government to evaluate this guarantee and still choose to deny Snowden's surrender if it believes a chance still exists that he will end up facing a death penalty. A second possiblity would be to invoke the political crimes exception. As already been shown before, his crimes could be considered political in nature. Espionage and treason have already been considered political offences in the past, and it doesn't take a brilliant lawyer to see how “government employee is prosecuted by own administration for revealing its secret policies of spying on its citizens and violating their rights” could be considered a political crime that Belgium could potentially deny Snowden's extradition for.

Is it likely that any of this will happen? Probably not. But the EU and its representative parliament directly backing and advising its member states to grant Snowden asylum might just be the support that a European country needs to defy the American extradition requests, and the unlikely but still potential negative consequences of ignoring the EU resolution could help sway such a decision even more.

All in all, these are very interesting times for those interested in international law and global relations.

Quote from: Flee on October 31, 2015, 09:22:28 AM

Not gonna bother this month, I think. Already played Dungeon Siege and not a fan of racing games. Still gotta download TWD before the day ends.

Just 'purchase' it so it's on your account so you can download later.

You don't have to download it straight away?

Fruity beers are godlike.

And pretty much anything to come out of a Belgian trappist or monastery.

Quote from: Flee on October 30, 2015, 08:10:07 AM

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on October 30, 2015, 07:37:14 AM

I'm surprised the US isn't listed due to all the shooting we have.

Translated from the Belgian / European travel advice guidelines on the US:

"While the US is a safe country where tourists are not a specific target of criminality, the crime rates and violence in the larger cities is higher than in Europe. Due to the widespread ownership of firearms, crimes can be very violent in nature. Travelers are therefore recommended to remain calm in situations of conflict and not to antagonize or escalate dangerous situations with potential violent responses."

They also make note of the prevalent fraud with credit cards and bank information, the extremely high costs of health care and the need to stay cautious and police around police.

Oh yeah well let me translate the US travel advice guidelines for Belgium

"They eat mayonnaise on their fries. Stay the fuck away."

Literally goes both ways. Getting just ketchup with your fries in the US is seriously haram.

I'm surprised the US isn't listed due to all the shooting we have.

Translated from the Belgian / European travel advice guidelines on the US:

"While the US is a safe country where tourists are not a specific target of criminality, the crime rates and violence in the larger cities is higher than in Europe. Due to the widespread ownership of firearms, crimes can be very violent in nature. Travelers are therefore recommended to remain calm in situations of conflict and not to antagonize or escalate dangerous situations with potential violent responses."

They also make note of the prevalent fraud with credit cards and bank information, the extremely high costs of health care and the need to stay cautious and police around police.

Headline: "JOURNALIST STONED".

Article: "gang held but never used stones, knocked over camera and threw coffee".

Door pls. This is literally the worst tier of propaganda.

Votes are in and it's a decisive victory for Majora's Mask, which she just started playing now.

I'm actually playing this right now, lol.

Flee - Awesome

oh shit that was supposed to be anon lol

Quote from: Flee on October 28, 2015, 01:54:56 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 28, 2015, 01:12:56 PM

or buy it

degenerates

If I like it, then I will. I have never played a game like this before and suspect there is a good chance I won't enjoy it. If I feel it's worth my money, I'll get it legit. But until then, I'm not going to commit my cash to Abstract Indie Game #2541 in the hopes that it doesn't disappoint and that I'll actually put some time into it rather than uninstall it half an hour in.

i don't have to tell you about the law, but your consumer wariness does not justify theft, sorry

Legally speaking not theft and a legal grey zone that is not criminally prosecuted and doesn't pose risks for the mere downloaders. I don't see many issues with this, really.

Can't as a mod.

Quote from: Flee on October 28, 2015, 01:43:03 PM

Copyright Law.
Trademark Law.
Patent Law.
International and European Electronic Communications Law.
Media Law.

The International European Electronics Communications Law class sounds like it would be fairly interesting. Copyright and Trademark law sound pretty boring if I'm honest.

They're not my favorite classes either. I'm more into IT than IP, but I have to take some of both.