The Relationship between the Regional Cooperative Models on Extradition and the Human Rights of the Requested Person in Human Trafficking cases
Even though sixty per cent of human trafficking cases around the globe occur in the ASEAN region, extradition requests are almost never made by the Member States, apart from in the case of Rohingya.In contrast, the number of surrendered persons within the EU is proliferating as a result of the transformative process of extradition from the intergovernmental to the supranational-type approach to extradition. However, since the adoption of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), subsequent literature has assumed that the supranational-type approach of the EAW negatively impacts upon the human rights of the requested persons.
This article will examine the relationship between regional cooperative structures on extradition based on Supranational and Intergovernmental models of the EU and the ASEAN respectively, in particular, the issue of human rights protection. It is argued that the relationship between the theoretical bases of regional cooperative structures and the impact upon human rights of the requested persons has never been critically examined. Therefore, the main question of this research is whether the possible impact on the human rights of the requested person is a direct consequence of regional cooperative models. In fact, both intergovernmental and supranational-type approaches have advantages and disadvantages in protecting the requested person’s human rights. With respect to the ASEAN context, the model of extradition process is not the crucial factor because law enforcement practitioners implement a more expedient process – a deportation system – in place of extradition, even though they know that it would erode the human rights of the requested person. In addition, under the supranational laws/institutions of the EU – the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, theEuropean Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union – the requested person’s human rights have been better protected than under the intergovernmental cooperative structure of the ASEAN. This is because the supranational legal instruments of the EU have been established for the implementation of legal mechanisms to protect human rights which are still lacking in the ASEAN.
Alicia Hinarejos, (2007). ‘Recent human rights developments in the EU Courts: The Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European arrest warrant and terror lists.’ Human Rights Law Review 7(4), 793.
Andrew Sanger, (2010). ‘Force of circumstance: the European arrest warrant and human rights.’ Democracy and Security 6(1), 17.
Anneli Albi, (2015). ‘Erosion of Constitutional Rights in EU Law: A Call for ‘Substantive Co-operative Constitutionalism.’ Vienna Journal of International Constitutional Law 9(2),151.
Annuska Derks, ‘Combating trafficking in South-East Asia: A review of policy and programme responses’ No. 2 (International Organization for Migration 2000).
Armin Von Bogdandy, (2000). ‘European Union as a Human Rights OrganizationHuman Rights and the Core of the European Union, The’ Common Market Law Review 37, 1307.
Charles De Visscher, (2015). Theory and reality in public international law. (Princeton University Press).
Cherif M. Bassiouni, (1974). International extradition and world public order. (Sijthoff)
Christian Kaunert, (2007). ‘Without the power of purse or sword”: the European arrest warrant and the role of the Commission’ Journal of European
integration 29(4), 387.
Edward Clarke, (1903).The Law of Extradition. (Stevens and Son: London)
Ermioni Xanthopoulou, (2015). ‘The Quest for Proportionality for the European Arrest Warrant: Fundamental Rights Protection in a Mutual Recognition Environment.’ New Journal of European Criminal Law 6(1), 32.
Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2018 (2018) accessed 18 January 2019
Ivan Anthony Shearer, (1971). Extradition in international law. (Manchester University Press). Joanna Apap and Sergio Carrera, (February
2004). ‘Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters-European Arrest Warrant–A Good Testing Ground for Mutual Recognition in an Enlarged EU?’ CEPS
Policy Briefs No. 46, 26.
John Parry, ‘Law, Politics, and the US-UK Extradition Relationship’ (2012) accessed 7 June 2018
John R Spencer, (2009). ‘Mutual recognition of decisions in criminal justice and the United Kingdom’ The future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union 18.
John R. Spencer, (2004). ‘The European arrest warrant.’ Cambridge Yearbook of European legal studies 6, 201.
John R. Spencer, (2013). ‘Extradition, the European Arrest Warrant and human rights.’ The Cambridge law journal 72(2),250.
Kenneth S. Gallant, (2009). ‘The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law, Chapter 7: Legality as a Rule of Customary
International Law Today & Conclusion: The Endurance of Legality.’
Libor Klimek, (2015). European arrest warrant. (Cham: Springer).
Luisa Marin, (2014). ‘Effective and Legitimate?: Learning from the Lessons of 10 Years of Practice with the European Arrest Warrant.’ New journal of European criminal law 5(3), 327.
Mark Charoenwong, (2018). ‘The Feasibility of Implementing the European Arrest Warrant Model into the ASEAN Context for Combating Human Trafficking’ (DPhil Thesis, Kent Law School, University of Kent).
Mark Mackarel, (2007). ‘European Arrest Warrant-The Early Years: Implementing and Using the Warrant, The’ European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 15, 37.
Michael Plachta, (2003). ‘European Arrest Warrant: Revolution in Extradition?’ European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 11(2), 178.
Muhammad Anwar, (2012). ‘What Are the Main Distinction between Extraditions and Surrender (EAWFD)?’
Nina Marlene Schallmoser, ‘The European arrest warrant and fundamental rights.’ (2014). European journal of crime, criminal law and criminal justice 22(2),135.
Oreste Pollicino, (2008). ‘European Arrest Warrant and Constitutional Principles of the Member States: A Case Law-Based Outline in the Attempt to Strike the Right Balance between Interacting Legal Systems’ German Law Journal 9(10),1313.
Sharon A. Williams, (1991). ‘The Double Criminality Rule and Extradition: A Comparative Analysis’ Nova Law Review 15, 581.
Stephen Langdon and Alan H. Gardiner, (1920). ‘The Treaty of Alliance between Ḫattušili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt.’ The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 6(1),179.
Steve Peers, (2013). ‘The European Arrest Warrant: the dilemmas of mutual recognition, human rights and EU citizenship.’ The Court of Justice and
the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Caselaw-La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l’Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence TMC Asser Press, 523.
Steven Greer, (2006). The European Convention on Human Rights: achievements, problems and prospects (Cambridge University Press).
Susie Alegre Leaf, (2003). ‘Human rights and the future of extradition in the European Union: Implications of recent case law in the United Kingdom, France and Spain.’ ERA Forum 4(4), 63.
Susie Alegre Leaf, (2004). ‘Mutual recognition in European judicial cooperation: A step too far too soon? Case study—the European arrest warrant’
European Law Journal 10(2), 200.
Valsamis Mitsillegas, Sergio Carrera, and Katharina Eisele, (2014). ‘The End of the Transitional Period for Police and Criminal Justice Measures Adopted
before the Lisbon Treaty: Who monitors trust in the European Criminal Justice area?’ CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, 74.
Zsuzsanna Deen-Racsmány and Rob Blekxtoon, (2005). ‘The decline of the nationality exception in European extradition?’ European Journal of Crime
Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 13(3),317.
Copyright (c) 2019 National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The article published and information contained in this journal such as text, graphics, logos and images is copyrighted by and proprietary to the National Research Council of Thailand.
The article will be published under a CC-BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org). This license means that anyone may freely read, download, distribute and make the article available to the public (in printed and electronic form), provided that the author and the journal as the source are acknowledged, whereas no commercial use is allowed and the work may not be altered, transformed or serve as the basis for a derivative work.