Where would I get tried? It’s my understanding that no country has jurisdiction over antarctica.
you could be tried by your own country or bythe country of the person you killed or by any other country that got their hands on you.
what legal precedence would, say, the US have for trying somebody who committed murder in the UK?
Actually, there are several claims: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/political/Antarctica.htm
I don’t know how well these would stand up against a U.S. claim, though. Also, committing the crime on the site of a nation’s scientific base would also put you under their jurisdiction (I think).
Would that be in cold blood?
The analogy to murder on the high seas seems apt.
If you kill someone in international waters, then the country of: the ship’s owners, ship’s registry, the murderer, and the victim can all attempt to prosecute. The last and the first are usually the ones to squabble over who has the right to prosecute first.
In Antarctica, replace “ship” with base or expedition. So if you were part of a US expedition and killed someone, then the US will seek prosecution if the country of the victim doesn’t make a big deal out of getting to prosecute first.
Treaties between major countries usually spell out how to handle such disputes.
So, to get away with it, you’ll have to be on a self-financed expedition, well away from a base, and you and your victim have to have forsaken all citizenship (and have that actually be recognized, tricky). But still, someone will raise a stink somewhere …
Here’s what the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 says
What if you and the victim was out exploring from a base, left the confines of the base and your victim has a nasty fall, and you don’t (purposfully) get help in time, and he freezes to death. Who would try you then
Oh, fine! Bring facts into it…
If an American citizen committed homicide in the United Kingdom, I would assume an extradition proceeding would bring him back home to face trial in the jurisdiction he resides.
Of course, if he committed a capital crime in Canada, he would stand a good chance of staying in Canada because Canada will not extradite anyone who might face the death penalty in their home land. I could be completely wrong.
>> what legal precedence would, say, the US have for trying somebody who committed murder in the UK?
UK is in Antarctica now? When did that happen? Or did they move Antarctica to the UK? I’m not keeping up with the news lately.
Just don’t kill anyone and you’ll be fine.
Derleth: I think you’ve got it backwards. If an American committed a crime in Britain, then Britain would get to try him. If he made it back to the US, then the UK would ask the US to extradite him back to Britain to face trial.
Canada’s no-extradition-to-death policy would come into effect if our guy committed a capital crime somewhere outside Canada, and then managed to get into the Great White North. I understand that France has a similar policy about extraditing people.
Since we’re on this hijack, what happens to Jeffrey Dahmer when the Canuck justice system rejects the extradition request? Is he[ul][]Somehow tried in Canada[]Locked up in a mental hospital at taxpayer expense[]Transferred to the custody of Citizenship & Immigration officials who, unable to find a willing country to which to deport him, place him on a small dinghy in the North Atlantic.[]Released, to finish his days eating poutine and watching This Hour Has 22 Minutes[/ul]
I read an article about 4 (5?) guys that were parachuting in Antarctica and all but one of them forgot to open their 'chute (I guess when the landscape doesn’t vary it’s hard to tell how high up you are.) Anyway, when the survivor got back to the country they departed from (Brazil?) he was heavily questioned and I think they might have even held him as a murder suspect for awhile. So maybe it’s just whoever gets their hands on you first.
From that article…
I’m pretty sure Bin Laden would have been smuggled over if British forces had captured him, however.
Yes. AFAIK, no EU country will extradite someone who would face the death penalty. Actually, as a general rule, a country won’t extradite someone who face a sentence unexisting in said country (say, the US wouldn’t extradite a thief to a country where he could have his hand chopped off) or prosecuted for a crime which doesn’t exist in the country (say, fiscal evasion in Switzerland).
Portugal won’t even extradite someone who could be life sentenced, since the longer sentence allowed under Portuguese law is 30 years. I know that because a french serial killer who had made the headlines fled to Portugal some years ago, and France had to promise a life sentence wouldn’t be required to get the agreement of Portuguese authorities for his extradition (he eventually commited suicide in a Portuguese jail before his actual extradition).
That sounds ineteresting in an unbelievable kind of way. Do you know if that article is available on the net somewhere?
This discussion has split over into the general extra-territorial application of a state’s criminal laws. Generally speaking, there are a number of bases on which a state (meaning “nation”, in this context) may peg its claim to jurisdiction over an alleged crime. Here’s the quick 20c run through international law on jurisdiction:
A. Where the act in question occurred within the territory of the state
This be the most obvious case. International law clearly concedes the exercise of jurisdiction by a state over property, persons, acts or events occurring within its territory.
This is a bit trickier when states claim jurisdiction to punish crimes that were completed within their territory, but commenced in another state (eg, a conspiracy to import drugs). However, particular Gen Conventions have given effect to laws on this basis of jurisdiction. It is also a little difficult where countries claim “objective” territoriality – ie, the crime was committed in another state, but produced gravely harmful consequences to the social or economic order inside another country (US Anti-trust law is an interesting example of this).
B. The nationality principles
A state may assert jurisdiction over its nationals, wherever they may be when they commit a crime. Obviously, they must usually wait for the return of the person before it can take enforcement action. However, if an extradition treaty is in force with the state the national is in, the national may be returned to their home state and subjected to the domestic criminal law.
C. The protective principle
A state may assert its authority over crimes that produce harmful effects on a state, notwithstanding the offence was committed by a foreign national who at all times during the commission of the offence was outside the territory of the state seeking to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction.
This principle can be used where it is impossible to assert the territorial or nationality principles as grounds for asserting extra-territorial jurisdiction. Examples of sufficient “harm” for the principle to be invoked are pretty strong stuff: political/military security; counterfeiting of the state’s currency.
D. The universality principle
The universality principle refers to criminal offences which attack international order as a whole and are of common concern to all mankind. Stuff like war-crimes. No connection between the offender and the state trying him/her is required.
Of topical interest, this principle may potentially allow for the prosecution of terrorist acts committed outside a particular state.
E. The Passive personality principle
Under this very contentious principle, a state can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by aliens on the basis that the victim was a national of the state concerned.
This is immensely contentious and is not widely recognised by international law. However, in one particular example, it was used to allow a US criminal court to prosecute crimes committed abroad.
Soooo, getting back to the OP, I’d be looking at box B and perhaps E for a murder committed in Antarctica. Also consider number A; although (AFAIK) the US does not claim territorial sovereignty over any part of Antarctica, a number of states DO (Australia being one).
Bottom-line: some country is gonna get you. Probably your homeland.
Replace “split” with “spilt” in my first sentence, if you will.
No use crying over split milk, I guess.
Canada can refuse to extradite for capital cases, but doesn’t automatically do so. The most famous case recently was that of Charles Ng, a California serial killer. Ng was arrested for shoplifting and assault in Calgary in 1985. It took six years and a Canadian Supreme Court decision (6 to 3) to send him back to California, where he now waits on death row. The usual policy is to only extradite only after assurances are given that the death penalty would not be sought. The nature and quantity of Ng’s crimes in California (a dozen or so kidnap/rape/murders, some videotaped, with an accomplice who committed suicide while in custody in California) ensured that California really really really wanted this guy dead. The fact that Ng had committed felonies in Canada (two store security guards tried to nab him for shoplifting; during the subsequent struggle Ng drew a gun and shot one of them in the hand) probably doomed him, since as his Calgary sentence for assault neared completion, it occured to Canadian officials that we didn’t want this Froot Loop on our streets, especially since “[a]t the time [of his arrest] he was carrying a rucksack containing a mask, a knife, a rope, cyanide capsules, a gun and extra ammunition.”
The decision to extradite even if assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed is at the discretion of our Minister of Justice. The idea that an American murderer can get a free ride by escaping into Canada is absurd.