European Arrest Warrant: Revolution in Extradition?
![handle is hein.journals/eccc11 and id is 186 raw text is: Michael Plachta
European Arrest Warrant:
Revolution in Extradition?
The last decade of the XX century has witnessed the emergence of a new form of
international cooperation in criminal matters, called 'surrender'. It was given birth
in the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (here-
inafter: ICTY)2 and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(hereinafter: ICTR).3 This procedure has found a clear and unequivocal definition
and normative regulation as well as solid legal foundation in the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court (hereinafter: the ICC).4 From these instruments, it
could have been inferred that this new mechanism is applicable in the relations between
an international criminal tribunal (court) and a state. However, one could argue that
this conclusion will have to be modified in the light of the Framework Decision on
the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States of
the European Union (hereinafter: EU), adopted by the Council of the European Union
on 13 June 2002.' This Decision uses the term 'surrender' for delivering up offenders
among this group of countries. This is a troubling development, particularly for states
that interpret Article 102 of the Rome Statute in good faith and, therefore have already
passed domestic legislation on surrender thereby distinguishing it from 'extradi-
tion'.
Practical problems inherent in the inter-state mechanism of delivering up offenders
are almost as old as the extradition itself. No one knows them better than law enforce-
ment officers as well as public prosecutors and the employees of the criminal justice
system (especially judges and magistrates) for whom the mounting obstacles on the
way towards effective prosecution are often a major source of frustration. The efforts
undertaken so far to improve the situation by modernizing the procedure and up-
1. Professor Michael Plachta is Chair of Criminal Procedure and Dean of the Faculty of Law, University
of Gdansk, Poland.
2. Statute of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in Report of the Secretary-General
Pursuant to para. 2 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 808, U.N. GAOR, 48th Sess., 3175th mtg.,
U.N. Doc. S/2-5704 (1993), reprinted in 32 I.L.M. 1159, pp. 1198-1200 [hereinafter ICTY Statute].
3. Statute of the International Criminal Court for Rwanda, Article 23, in UN Sec. Council Res. 955,
UN SCOR, 49th Year, Res. and Dec., at 15, UN Doc. S/INF/50 (1994) [hereinafter ICTR Statute].
4. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 183/9, reprinted
in 37 I.L.M. 999 (1998) [hereinafter Rome Statute].
5. Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between
Member States of the European Union, 13 June 2002, O.J. L 190/1 (18.07.2002).
178
European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 11/2, 178-194, 2003.
Q lluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/eccc11&div=18&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
European Arrest Warrant: Revolution in Extradition?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most