The Extradition Treaty between Georgia and the United States – A Legal Analysis and Perspectives for Implementation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2025.9294Keywords:
Extradition, Extradition of Georgian Citizens, Extradition and Human Rights.Abstract
The Extradition Treaty between Georgia and the United States of America (hereinafter - “the Treaty”)[1] constitutes a pivotal legal instrument designed to regulate the extradition process and foster deeper legal cooperation between the two states. This article offers a critical analysis of the Treaty’s core provisions, with particular focus on the permissibility of extraditing nationals, the safeguards for the protection of human rights, and the role of judicial institutions within the extradition framework.
By examining the Treaty through the lens of international criminal cooperation, the article underscores Georgia’s enhanced capacity to engage effectively in cross-border legal processes, especially with respect to the transfer of individuals from the United States. It further investigates the legal and procedural challenges associated with harmonising the Treaty’s obligations with Georgia’s existing legislative framework and its binding international commitments.
A key focus of the analysis is the Treaty’s departure from previous legal norms by permitting the extradition of a party’s own nationals. This represents a significant shift in the legal landscape and has far-reaching implications for constitutional and human rights considerations in Georgian legislation.
Another notable innovation addressed in the article concerns the extradition of individuals charged with crimes punishable by the death penalty. The Treaty permits such extradition only upon assurances that the death sentence will not be carried out, thus aligning the practice with international human rights standards.
Additionally, the article discusses the evidentiary thresholds applicable in extradition proceedings and explores the institutional role of domestic courts in assessing compliance with the Treaty’s procedural and substantive guarantees. The analysis concludes by identifying potential friction points arising from the interplay of differing legal systems and offers recommendations for effective implementation within Georgia’s legal order.
[1] Extradition Treaty between Georgia and the United States of America, see the joint statement: https://ge.usembassy.gov/u-s-georgia-joint-statement-on-extradition-treaty-negotiations/ [02.05.2025].
References
Constitution of Georgia, The Legislative Herald of Georgia, 31-33, 24/08/1995.
Law of Georgia on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, 09/08/2010.
Law of Georgia on Georgian International Treaties, The Legislative Herald of Georgia, 44, 11/11/1997.
Law of Georgia on the Complete Abolition of the Special Measure of Punishment - Death Penalty, The Legislative Herald of Georgia, 45, 21/11/1997.
Law of Georgia on Cooperation of Georgia with the International Criminal Court, 20/08/2003 (in Georgian).
Extradition Treaty Between Georgia and The United States of America
Khutsishvili K., Extradition and Deportation under the European Convention on Human Rights, in European Human Rights Standards and Their Impact on Georgian Legislation and Practice, ed. Korkelia K., Tbilisi, 2006, 313 (in Georgian).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations Treaty Series, 1969, 1155.
European Convention on Extradition, European Treaty Series, 1957, 24.
Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, European Treaty Series, 1983, 114.
Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, European Treaty Series, 2002, 187.
Protocol on the application of the Agreement on Extradition between the United States of America and the European Union to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, signed 15 June 2005 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/10-201.14-Lithuania-EU-Extradition-Treaty.pdf [28.02.2025].
Extradition Treaty Between The Government of the United States of America and The Government of the Republic of Latvia, signed 7 December 2005 https://2021-2025.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/09-415-Latvia-Extradition-Treaty.pdf [28.02.2025].
Extradition Treaty Between The Government of the United States of America and The Government of the Republic of Estonia, signed 8 February 2006 https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/09-407-Estonia-Extradition-Treaty.pdf [28.02.2025].
18 USC §§ 3181–3196.
Arnell P., Davies G., The Forum Bar in UK Extradition Law: An Unnecessary Failure, The Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 84, №2, 2020, 142.
Arnell P., The Contrasting Evolution of the Right to a Fair Trial in UK Extradition Law, The international journal of human rights, Vol. 22, №7, 2018, 869.
Asta B., International Extradition Law - European Court of Human Rights Develops Adapted Test for Life Sentence in International Extradition Context - Sanchez-Sanchez v. United Kingdom, Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. 56, № 4, 2023, 811.
Bassiouni M. C., International Extradition United States Law and Practice, 6th ed., Oxford, 2014.
Beltran M. B., Martin A. N., Post 9/11Trendsin International Judicial Cooperation Human Rights as a Constraint on Extradition in Death Penalty Cases, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, №3, 2012, 581.
Blekxtoon R., Zsuzsanna D.R., The Decline of the Nationality Exception in European Extradition? The Impact of the Regulation of (Non-)Surrender of Nationals and Dual Criminality under the European Arrest Warrant, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 13, №3, 2005, 317.
Cassese A., International Law, 2nd ed., Oxford, 2005.
Chhabra S., Nationality and Extradition, RGNUL Law Review, Vol. 4, №2, 2016, 1.
Clarke A., Terrorism, Extradition, and the Death Penalty, William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 29, №3, 2003, 783.
Drake S. K., Dangerous Precedents: Circumventing Extradition to Implement the Death Penalty, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Vol. 36, №2, 2013, 333.
Gregg R., The European Tendency toward Non-Extradition to the United States in Capital Cases: Treads, Assurances, and Breaches of Duty, Miami International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 10, №1, 2002, 113.
Harkins and Edwards v. United Kingdom, [2012] ECHR.
Hawkins K. R., The Promises of Torturers: Diplomatic Assurances and the Legality of Rendition, Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol. 20, №2, 2006, 213.
Hutchinson T., Duncan N., Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research, (2012) 17 Deakin Law Review, Vol. 17, №1, 2012, 83.
Kester J.G., Some Myths of United States Extradition Law, Georgetown Law Journal Vol. 76, №4, 1998, 1441.
Kester J.G., Some Myths of United States Extradition Law, Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 76, №4, 1988, 1441, 1444-47.
King K.F., The Death Penalty, Extradition, and the War against Terrorism: U.S. Responses to European Opinion about Capital Punishment, Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 9, №1, 2003, 161, 167-70.
Koh S. A., Core Criminal Procedure, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 105, №1, 2020, 251.
Langford P., Extradition and fundamental rights: the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 13, №4, 2009, 512.
Lomio P. J., Spang-Hanssen H., Wilson G. D., Legal Research Methods in a Modern World: A Coursebook, 3rd ed., Copenhagen, 2011, 11.
Parisi F., Ghei N., The Role of Reciprocity in International Law, Cornell International Law Journal, Vol 36, №1, 2003, 93.
Plachta M., (Non-)Extradition of Nationals: A Neverending Story?,Emory International Law Review, Vol. 13, №1 1999, 77, 97-98.
Sorensen, J. S., The Interplay Between the Executive and Judicial Branches in Extradition, Litigation, Vol. 40, №4, 2014, 60.
Staker C., Jurisdiction, in Evans M.D. (ed.), International Law, 5th ed., Oxford, 2014, 299-01.
Factor v. Laubenheimer, (1933), 290 US 276, 287
United States v. Rauscher, (1886), 119 US 407, 414
Soering v. United Kingdom [1989] ECHR (Ser. A.).
Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [2005] ECHR.
Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom [2012] ECHR.
Kirkwood v. United Kingdom [1984] ECHR.
Chahal v. the United Kingdom [1996] ECHR.
https://www.supremecourt.ge/ka/cases [28.02.2025].
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=declarations-by-treaty&numSte=024&codeNature=10&codePays=GEO [28.02.2025].
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=024[28.02.2025].
https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/cp_georgia_eng [28.02.2025]
https://infocenter.gov.ge/blog/kandidatis-statusis-mnishvneloba-da-misi-praktikuli-sargebeli/ [28.02.2025].
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
