•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

543

Document Type

Note

Abstract

It can safely be said that the United States is a world leader and is looked upon by other nations as champion in world affairs. Recently, however, in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, the United States sent a message to the nations of the world that it is permissible for one nation to violate international law through incursions on the territorial sovereignty of other nations. Furthermore, the Court established that the rules set out in an extradition treaty will not control the United States' conduct. In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican national, was forcibly kidnapped from Mexico by United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents and flown to the United States to be tried in connection with the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar. Although an extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico exists, and despite the fact that abduction is not an internationally accepted method of law enforcement, the Court concluded that the abduction did not violate the extradition treaty and that the United States courts had jurisdiction over Alvarez-Machain. This conclusion is contrary to the generally accepted rules governing extraditions which dictate that the surrender of a fugitive be conditioned upon a presentation to the asylum state of such evidence of criminality as would, according to the law of the place where the fugitive is found, justify apprehension. The Court's decision was met with heavy criticism from the international community. For example, both Mexico and Canada denounced the ruling saying that any attempt by the United States to use forcible abduction would be considered a criminal act. The Colombian government claimed the ruling "threatens the legal stability of [all] public treaties," and several South American nations issued a joint declaration requesting a review of the decision by the Inter-American Juridical Committee of the Organization of American States. Additionally, several Latin American countries independently attacked the decision. The Argentine Foreign Minister said that Argentina considered the decision "deplorable" and would punish such behavior in its country. The Nicaraguan Foreign Minister also reprimanded the Court, stating that the decision "violates national sovereignty and sets an extraterritorial precedent that Nicaragua opposes." Caribbean leaders presented a united front, calling the decision "offensive," "monstrous," and "arrogant," while newspaper editorials in Egypt and Tunisia attacked the decision, referring to it as "an attempt to legalize modem piracy which is unacceptable and totally rejected." This Note addresses the issues underlying those criticisms and takes the position that the Alvarez-Machain decision was not based on principles of domestic or international law, but rather on a Darwinian notion of survival of the fittest. The first part of this Note looks at the background and rationale of the decision. The second part identifies and analyzes the discrepancies in the Court's decision and argues that these discrepancies are of sufficient magnitude to warrant a conclusion that the decision is not supported by the rule of law. The third part of this Note discusses the principles of international law that are relevant to and breached by the Court's decision. The Note concludes that given the absence of legal or international support for the decision, the Executive branch should endeavor to ameliorate its impact since this arm of government is responsible for the instant crisis.

Download

Share

COinS