(d) Relevant studies made or being made by non-governmental bodies concerned with international law;

(e) The relevant views of qualified publicists;

3. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its thirtieth session an item entitled "Report of the Secretary-General on the question of diplomatic asylum."

On November 26, 1974, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued regulations pertaining to applications for and decisions regarding asylum. The regulations, which constitute a new Section 108 of 8 CFR, became effective on January 2, 1975. They provide:

§ 108.1 Application.

An application for asylum by an alien who is seeking admission to the United States at a land border port or preclearance station shall be referred to the nearest American consul. An application for asylum by any other alien who is within the United States or who is applying for admission to the United States at an airport or seaport of entry shall be submitted on Form I-589 to the district director having jurisdiction over his place of residence in the United States or over the port of entry. The applicant's accompanying spouse and unmarried children under the age of 18 years may be included in the application.

§ 108.2 Decision.

The applicant shall appear in person before an immigration officer prior to adjudication of the application, except that the personal appearance of any children included in the application may be waived by the district director. The district director shall request the views of the Department of State before making his decision unless in his opinion the application is clearly meritorious or clearly lacking in substance. The district director may approve or deny the application in the exercise of discretion. The district director's decision shall be in writing, and no appeal shall lie therefrom. If an application is denied for the reason that it is clearly lacking in substance, notification shall be given to the Department of State, with opportunity to supply a statement containing matter favorable to the application, and departure shall not be enforced until 30 days following the date of notification. A case shall be certified to the regional commissioner for final decision if the Department of State has made a favorable statement, but, notwithstanding, the district director has chosen to deny the application. If any decision will be based in whole or in part upon a statement furnished by the Department of State, the statement shall be made a part of the record of proceeding, and the applicant shall have an opportunity for inspection, explanation, and rebuttal thereof as prescribed in § 103.2 (b) (2) of this chapter. A denial under this part shall not preclude the alien, in a subsequent expulsion hearing, from applying for the benefits of Section 243 (h) of the Act and of Articles 32 and 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Fed. Reg., Vol. 39, No. 233, Dec. 3, 1974, p. 41832.

$5

Extradition

U.S.-Denmark

Bilateral Agreements

The Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Denmark was approved by the Senate on March 29, 1974, and ratified by the United States on April 17, 1974 (TIAS 7864; 25 UST 1293; entered into force July 31, 1974). It had been signed on June 22, 1972. The treaty follows closely the organization and content of the comprehensive treaties entered into by the United States in the past few years, the most recent being those with Italy, Paraguay and Uruguay (see the 1973 Digest, Ch. 3, § 5, pp. 118–121).

One new provision is Article 5, dealing with the extradition of one's own nationals. It provides that "The United States shall not be bound to deliver up its own nationals and Denmark shall not be bound to deliver up nationals of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway or Sweden, but the executive authority of the requested states shall, if not prevented by the laws of that state, extradite such nationals if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so. If extradition is not granted pursuant to this Article, the requested state shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.” Mr. Knute E. Malmborg, Assistant Legal Adviser for Management and Consular Affairs, Department of State, made a statement to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on March 19, 1974, in which he said that the Article 5 formulation "takes into account Danish extradition law and practice whereby nationals of the Nordic countries are not normally extradited but rather prosecuted locally, particularly if the individual is a resident of a Nordic country."

Article 7 of the treaty contains provisions required by Danish law. It reads as follows:

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

1. When the person whose surrender is sought is being proceeded against or has been tried and discharged or punished in the territory of the requested state for the offense for which his extradition is requested. If the charge against a person sought in Denmark has been waived, extradition may be granted only if the conditions of applicable Danish law permit.

2. When the person whose surrender is sought has been tried and acquitted or has undergone his punishment in a third state for the offense for which his extradition is requested.

3. When the prosecution or the enforcement of the penalty for the offense has become barred by lapse of time according to the laws of either of the contracting states.

4. If the offense for which his extradition is requested is a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense, or if the requested state has reason to assume that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been made with a view to try or punish him for a political offense or an offense connected with a political offense. If any question arises as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph, it shall be decided by the authorities of the requested state.

5. If in special circumstances, having particular regard to the age, health or other personal conditions of the person concerned, the requested state has reason to believe that extradition will be incompatible with humanitarian considerations.

6. In respect of a military offense.

Extradition may be refused on any other ground which is specified by the law of the requested state.

Article 3 of the treaty, which contains the list of offenses, includes 28 items covering those offenses of greatest concern to the United States which are also crimes in Denmark. As in all of the bilateral extradition treaties recently negotiated or now in negotiation by the United States, the treaty with Denmark includes the offense of hijacking, and narcotics offenses. Article 3 also permits extradition to be granted in the case of conspiracy to commit any of the offenses listed. Article 4 of the treaty defines "territory" to include registered aircraft in flight, with flight being defined as "from the moment when power is applied for the purpose of takeoff until the moment when the landing run ends." The second paragraph of Article 4 provides for extradition for offenses committed outside the territory of either party if the offense so committed would be punishable under the laws of both parties. This provision is significant in its applicability to narcotics offenses, particularly conspiracy to import narcotics into the United States when the individual may not have ever entered the United States.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 20, the treaty applies to offenses committed before, as well as after the date it entered into force. Article 8 contains a limitation which permits refusal of extradition unless assurances are received that the death penalty will not be imposed for an offense which is not punishable by death in the country from which extradition is requested.

See Sen. Ex. U, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., Oct. 30, 1973. See also Sen. Ex. Rept. No. 93-28, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Mar. 21, 1974. Mr. Malmborg's statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is at Id., pp. 2–3.

U.S.-Australia

The Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Australia was signed at Washington on May 14, 1974. The Treaty, upon

entry into force, will terminate, as between the United States and Australia, the 1931 Treaty on Extradition between the United States and Great Britain (47 Stat. 2122; TS 849; entered into force June 24, 1935), as made applicable to Australia.

The Treaty with Australia also follows generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. It provides for the extradition of fugitives charged with, or convicted of, any of 29 offenses specified in Article II. Article II(2) provides that extradition is to be granted for any other offenses which are made extraditable under the extradition laws of Australia and which are felonies under the laws of the United States. Extradition may also be granted in the case of a conspiracy to commit any of the specified or incorporated offenses.

Article III defines the territorial application of the Treaty. Included here are registered aircraft in flight, with flight defined, as in the Treaty with Denmark, in accordance with the 1963 Tokyo Convention. The major purpose is to extend jurisdiction to acts of air piracy whether or not they occur over United States territory.

Article IV provides for extradition for offenses committed outside the territory of either party if the offense would be punishable under the laws of both parties. As in the Treaty with Denmark, this provision would be most useful in the area of narcotics offenses.

Article V deals with the extradition of one's own nationals. It provides that neither party is obligated to deliver up its own nationals but that discretion to do so resides in the executive authority of each party.

Article VIII provides that if extradition is requested for an offense which, under the law of the requesting state, is subject to a penalty of death, the law of the requested state not providing for such a penalty in a similar case, the requested state may recommend to the requesting state that any punishment imposed for such an offense be a less severe punishment.

Article XIV provides that a person extradited under the Treaty may be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting state for any offense mentioned in Article II for which the person could be convicted upon proof of the facts upon which the request for extradition was based. For example, in certain circumstances it would be possible to obtain a manslaughter conviction against a person who was extradited as the result of a warrant specifying murder as the extraditable offense while without this provision it would not be possible to obtain conviction on such lesser included offenses.

Article XVIII provides that each party is to assist the other in the presentation of extradition cases before the respective judges and mag

istrates. A similar clause is found in the Treaty with Denmark and in the more recent extradition treaties negotiated by the United States. It is now normally included because the costs of presentation are a hindrance to the making of extradition requests. This differs from 18 U.S.C. 3195, which requires that costs or expenses incurred in extradition proceedings be paid by the requesting authority.

Sen. Exec. F, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., Aug. 22, 1974.

86

Protection of Human Rights

General

On October 16, 1974, George H. Aldrich, Acting Legal Adviser of the Department of State, gave an address on "Human Rights as a Factor in Foreign Policy" to the Chicago Foreign Policy Conference. The following is the text:

In order to discuss the human rights factor in the foreign policy of the United States, we must begin with certain assumptions about the goals of our foreign policy. These goals can only be stated briefly through oversimplification, but I hope there can be general agreement that our fundamental goal is to promote peace and the security and welfare of the United States and its citizens. Let me begin by asserting that the pursuit of this goal is not inconsistent with the promotion of human rights in other countries and, in fact, that its realization requires the promotion by the United States of such human rights.

Concern for the rights of man is one of our finest traditions and is rooted in our Jeffersonian heritage. To be sure, there has always been a lingering uncertainty as to how far this concern legitimately can be extended in our dealings with other countries. However, in today's world the overriding reality is that of interdependence. Events in this century have forced us to recognize that we cannot ignore actions in other countries that trample on fundamental human rights because, in some degree, they affect us all. The development at Nuremberg of the concept of crimes against humanity followed, rather than preceded, the reality that certain crimes by foreign governments against their own citizens simply could not be ignored or condoned. The psychological effect is doubtless hard to assess, but gross violations of basic human rights nudge the climate of opinion in the world in ways we can ill afford. The apparent effect in this country may be small, as in several cases during the past decade where thousands or even hundreds of thousands were killed in the course of racial conflicts in distant countries, and the Western press and public largely ignored the slaughter. In other cases, the effect may be significant and result in an outpouring of public indignation and the imposition by the Congress of sanctions against the offending country. In a few cases, such as Rhodesia and South Africa, the reaction is nearly universal. In others it is highly colored by politi

569-769-75-10