24.01.2014 Views

International Law and Justice Working Papers - IILJ

International Law and Justice Working Papers - IILJ

International Law and Justice Working Papers - IILJ

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

countries, pointing out that the Great Britain <strong>and</strong> the US offered an almost unlimited asylum <strong>and</strong><br />

almost never extradited refugees <strong>and</strong> fugitives to other countries. 84 In contrast, most German<br />

states did not recognize the right to asylum <strong>and</strong> extradited refugees to their countries of origin. 85<br />

Most other countries adopted in their practice a line somewhere in between those two<br />

opposites. 86 Due to the lack of unanimity in the practice it was no wonder that there was a<br />

disagreement among writers of international law about whether international law foresees a right<br />

to grant asylum or, conversely, prescribes a duty to extradite.<br />

Mohl’s approach was nuanced – while he criticized Britain’s expansive approach to asylum, he<br />

also observed that if a country would in general fail to accept foreigners <strong>and</strong> refugees, it would<br />

make itself co-responsible in cases of “irresponsible suppression”. 87<br />

According to Mohl, one<br />

could take a cosmopolitan <strong>and</strong> an egoistic view about the right to asylum (remarkably, Mohl<br />

argued that it was precisely Britain that had taken the egoistic view). 88 However, the right to<br />

asylum was needed already for the reason that no one could be sure that he would himself not<br />

need asylum one day in the cases of violence. The purpose was not to help mean criminals who<br />

had deserved their punishment but to offer refuge to those who were unjustly prosecuted. 89<br />

Reasoning not so much on the basis of history (as Bulmerincq) or international treaties (which<br />

anyway contained contradictory principles), Mohl argued more or less on the ground of a<br />

philosophy based on common sense, offering a compromise solution that is accepted in<br />

international law doctrine until our days. A State should not grant asylum <strong>and</strong> should extradite<br />

criminals who have violated State’s usual criminal law (citizens’ rights primarily vis-à-vis each<br />

84 Mohl, p. 476-480.<br />

85 Mohl, p. 486-490.<br />

86 About Russia, see Witte, Die Rechtsverhältnisse der Ausländer in Russl<strong>and</strong>, Dorpat, 1847.<br />

87 Mohl, p. 527-528.<br />

88 Mohl, p. 532-535.<br />

89 Mohl, p. 528.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!