2 ms·
> when countries disagree significantly on law, they just don't sign extradition agreements That isn't about "compatibility" of the laws. The US has extraditio
by buran77 5y ago
> when countries disagree significantly on law, they just don't sign extradition agreements
That isn't about "compatibility" of the laws. The US has extradition treaties with pretty much all of their allies but the conditions are mainly dictated by the US given their stronger position.
No country's laws condones war crimes and yet no international court even tried prosecuting any case of suspected war crimes committed by the US military because of things like this [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- kube-system 5y agoI'm not talking about disagreements in the minutia of law. I'm talking about "disagreement" of law in a broad context. Extraditions to the US, even from countries with which the US has a treaty, are not always honored. My point is that it's not a one-way street. Countries extradite because they think it's in their best interest.
- buran77 5y ago> Countries extradite because they think it's in their best interest Indeed and that was my point. Treaties are signed despite significant disagreements in the law, that's not the driving factor you made it out to be earlier. The EU and the US historically disagreed significantly on things like the death penalty or drug related crimes yet the extradition treaties were readily signed. But interests are better served by avoiding retaliation.
- kube-system 5y agoThere are multiple factors and law is absolutely one. The fact that the US has the death penalty is a commonly cited reason that other countries deny or hesitate to extradite.