with much passion in the press of Europe. And although the principle of non-extradition was far from becoming universally recognised, that discussion fostered its growth indirectly. A practical proof thereof is that in 1830 even Austria and Prussia, two of the reactionary Powers of that time, refused Russia's demand for the extradition of fugitives who had taken part in the Polish Revolution of that year. And another proof thereof is that at about the same time, in 1829, a celebrated dissertation by a Dutch jurist made its appearance, in which the principle of non-extradition of political criminals was for the first time defended with juristic arguments and on a juristic basis. On the other hand, a reaction set in in 1833, when Austria, Prussia, and Russia concluded treaties which remained in force for a generation, and which stipulated that henceforth individuals who had committed crimes of high treason and lèse-majesté, or had conspired against the safety of the throne and the legitimate Government, or had taken part in a revolt, should be surrendered to the State concerned. The same year, however, is epoch-making in favour of the principle of non-extradition of political criminals, for in 1833 Belgium enacted her celebrated extradition law, the first of its kind, being the very first Municipal Law which expressly interdicted the extradition of foreign political criminals. As Belgium, which had seceded from the Netherlands in 1830 and became recognised and neutralised by the Powers in 1831, owed her very existence to revolt, she felt the duty of making it a principle of her Municipal Law to grant asylum to foreign political fugitives, a principle which was for the first time put 1 H. Provó Kluit, De deditione profugorum. Difficulty concern ing the Conception of Political Crime. into practice in the treaty of extradition concluded in 1834 between Belgium and France. The latter, which to the present day has no municipal extradition law, has nevertheless henceforth always in her extradition treaties with other Powers stipulated the principle of non-extradition of political criminals. And the other Powers followed gradually. Even Russia had to give way, and since 1867 this principle is to be found in all extradition treaties of Russia with other Powers, that with Spain of 1888 excepted. It is due to the stern attitude of Great Britain, Switzerland, Belgium, France, and the United States that the principle has conquered the world. These countries, in which individual liberty is the very basis of all political life, and constitutional government a political dogma of the nation, watched with abhorrence the methods of government of many other States between 1815 and 1860. These Governments were more or less absolute and despotic, repressing by force every endeavour of their subjects to obtain individual liberty and a share in the government. Thousands of the most worthy citizens and truest patriots had to leave their country for fear of severe punishment for political crimes. Great Britain and the other free countries felt in honour bound not to surrender such exiled patriots to the persecution of their Governments, but to grant them an asylum. 1 §334. Although the principle became and is generally recognised that political criminals shall not be extradited, serious difficulties exist concerning the conception of "political crime." Such conception is of great importance, as the extradition of a criminal may depend upon it. It is unnecessary 1 See, however, below, § 340, concerning the reactionary movement in the matter. here to discuss the numerous details of the controversy. It suffices to state that whereas many writers call such crime "political" as was committed from a political motive, others call "political" any crime committed for a political purpose; again, others recognise such crime only as "political" as was committed from a political motive and at the same time for a political purpose; and, thirdly, some writers confine the term 66 political crime" to certain offences against the State only, as high treason, lèse-majesté, and the like. To the present day all attempts have failed to formulate a satisfactory conception of the term, and the reason of the thing will, I believe, for ever exclude the possibility of finding a satisfactory conception and definition. The difficulty is caused through the so-called "relative political crimes" or délits complexes-namely, those complex cases in which the political offence comprises at the same time an ordinary crime, such as murder, arson, theft, and the like. Some writers deny categorically that such complex crimes are political; but this opinion is wrong and dangerous, since indeed many honourable political criminals would have to be extradited in consequence thereof. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that many cases of complex crimes, although the deed may have been committed from a political motive or for a political purpose, are such as ought not to be considered political. Such cases have roused the indignation of the whole civilised world, and have indeed endangered the very value of the principle of non-extradition of political criminals. Three practical attempts have therefore been made to deal with such complex crimes without violating this principle. The so-called Belgian The Russian 1881. $335. The first attempt was the enactment of the so-called attentat clause by Belgium in 1856, following the case of Jacquin in 1854. A French manufacturer named Jules Jacquin, domiciled in Belgium, and a foreman of his factory named Célestin Jacquin, who was also a Frenchman, tried to cause an explosion on the railway line between Lille and Calais with the intention of murdering the Emperor Napoleon III. France requested the extradition of the two criminals, but the Belgian Court of Appeal had to refuse the surrender on account of the Belgian extradition law interdicting the surrender of political criminals. To provide for such cases in the future, Belgium enacted in 1856 a law amending her extradition law and stipulating that murder of the head of a foreign Government or of a member of his family should not be considered a political crime. Gradually all European States, with the exception of England, Italy, and Switzerland, have adopted that attentat clause, and a great many Continental writers urge its adoption by the whole of the civilised world. $336. Another attempt to deal with complex Project of crimes without detriment to the principle of nonextradition of political criminals was made by Russia in 1881. Influenced by the murder of the Emperor Alexander II. in that year, Russia invited the Powers to hold an International Conference at Brussels for the consideration of the proposal that thenceforth no murder or attempt to murder ought to be considered as a political crime. But the Conference did not take place, since Great Britain as well as France declined to take part in it. Thus the development of things had come to a standstill, many States having 1 See details in Martitz, 1. c. II. p. 372. 2 See details in Martitz, 1. c. II. p. 479. adopted, others declining to adopt, the Belgian clause, and the Russian proposal having fallen through. 66 Solution of 1892. §337. Eleven years later, in 1892, Switzerland The Swiss attempted a solution of the problem on a new basis. the ProIn that year Switzerland enacted an extradition law blem in whose article 10 recognises the non-extradition of political criminals, but lays down the rule at the same time that political criminals shall nevertheless be surrendered in case the chief feature of the offence wears more the aspect of an ordinary than of a political crime, and that the decision concerning the extraditability of such criminals rests with the Bundesgericht," the highest Swiss Court of Justice. This Swiss rule contains a better solution of the problem than the Belgian attentat clause in so far as it allows the circumstances of the special case to be taken into consideration. And the fact that the decision is taken out of the hands of the Government and transferred to the highest Court of the country, denotes likewise a remarkable progress. For the Government cannot now be blamed whether extradition is granted or refused, the decision of an independent Court of Justice being a certain guarantee that an impartial view of the circumstances of the case has been taken.1 for the tradition § 338. The numerous attempts against the lives of Rationale heads of States, as the two attempts against the late Principle Emperor William I. of Germany, the murder of of Non-exAlexander II. of Russia in 1881, of President Carnot of Political of France in 1894, of King Humbert of Italy in 1900, and the frequency of anarchistic crimes, have 1 It ought to be mentioned that the Institute of International Law at its meeting at Geneva in 1892 (see Annuaire, XII. p. 182) adopted four rules concerning extradition of political criminals, Criminals. |