This paper explores the Swedish extradition of Balts who fought for the Axis powers in the Baltic eastern front during World War II. While previous research has focused on the fate of the detained, this study examines the political crisis that ensued from the extradition process. By employing a perspective of sovereignty, the study investigates the power struggle between the government, the Swedish press, and the parliament.   The theoretical framework of domestic sovereignty is utilised to analyse the power dynamics involved in the extradition. Drawing upon classical political thinkers, this study defines domestic sovereignty as the exclusive concentration of power within a central authority, without power-sharing among various entities. This concept differs from Westphalian sovereignty, where a central authority is independent from other sovereign states within its territory.   Through the lens of domestic sovereignty, this paper addresses two key questions. Firstly, it demonstrates that the prolonged and intensified extradition process resulted from the government's diminished ability to uphold domestic sovereignty. The press exerted influence over both the government and parliament, thereby creating a shared power structure. Secondly, the investigation suggests that the government proceeded with the extradition when it successfully reclaimed domestic sovereignty and reasserted itself as the sole authority.   To enhance the analysis, a critical discourse analysis is employed. This approach identifies the press as an influential agent capable of shaping public opinion and constituting discourse, rather than merely reflecting it. In this case, the press is recognised as a powerful actor engaged in a struggle for influence. The analysis incorporates text materials from four sources: newspaper articles covering the extradition, An interpellation in the Swedish parliament, documents from the foreign affairs committee of the parliament and government, and the diaries and notes of Swedish foreign minister Östen Undén.   Furthermore, the study investigates the parallels between domestic sovereignty and Westphalian sovereignty. As the government faced pressure from the Soviet Union, its Westphalian sovereignty was challenged, leading to it reclaiming its domestic sovereignty. This finding highlights the interconnectedness between these two forms of sovereignty in the context of the Swedish extradition of Balts during World War II.

This essay explores how and why the memory of the Baltic extradition in 1946 has been shaped and used in relation to the social democratic Swedish identity, trough the theory of cultural history. The method utilized is a qualitative content analysis of the 71 articles in Aftonbladet that discuss the term “baltutlämningen” between 1947-2022. Here, a theoretical and methodical device is presented and applied. The device outlines the Swedish identity by examining how the articles negotiate guilt to avoid shame, thus preserving the self-image.       The findings show that the remembrance of the Baltic extradition serves to cement an image that upholds the identity of the social democratic group as rational, humanitarian, and anti-fascist. Consequently, when Aftonbladet brought the memory to life in 1966 it was shaped to avoid anything that would cause shame by contradicting those values. Thus, the narrative came to portray the political right as guilty for the extradition, and the Balts’ unnecessary suffering during it. Later, the memory was used to reinforce the progressive and humane self-image by being used as a cautionary example, legitimizing current social democratic stances regarding questions of asylum, international relations, and war crime policies.           In the 2000’s a new discussion emerged alongside the previous narrative, as historians started questioning the facts and reassessing the feelings of guilt and shame. With the admission that fascist sympathizers may also have infiltrated the social democratic group, the historian debate joined the European narrative: promoting the international cause for democracy, through national self-evaluation, to combat intolerance and fascism globally. Thus, the memory of extradition of the Balts has come to connect the Swedish cause to the European one, maintaining the rational, humanitarian, and anti-fascist self-image.      From an identity perspective the recurring guilt-shame complex shows that the humanitarian and democratic values are desired, but not innate, aspects of Swedish identity. Furthermore, the study shows that guilt and shame have consistently been used as educational tools to shape the Swedish people, inside and outside the classroom.

[pt] O caso Cesare Battisti ficou amplamente conhecido dentro e fora da esfera jurídica, tornando-se um caso de grande interesse público. Dentro do meio jurídico, o caso despertou diversas questões, tais como a concessão de refúgio para criminosos condenados, a possibilidade de cassação da condição de refugiado e possibilidade de negativa do Chefe do Executivo de efetivar a extradição como uma decisão política e uma questão de soberania nacional. Ainda, o presente caso permanece suscitando questões, tendo o Supremo Tribunal Federal sido novamente provocado a se manifestar sobre a prescrição e decadência do ato administrativo que negou a entrega de Cesare Battisti para as autoridades italianas e sobre a possibilidade de sua expulsão e deportação. A presente pesquisa pretende, com base em estudos doutrinários, na análise do caso de Cesare Battisti e dos julgados do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre extradição, analisar a possibilidade de revogação do ato administrativo do Chefe do Executivo que decidiu pela não entrega de Cesare Battisti ao Estado Italiano. / [en] The Cesare Battisti case became wildly known within and outside the legal scope, becoming a case of great public interest. Within the legal atmosphere, the case raised a number of issues, such as granting refugee status for convicted criminals, the possibility to cancel the refugee status and the possibility of the Chief of the Executive Branch to refuse the enforcement of extradition as a political decision and a matter of national sovereignty. Moreover, the present case is still raising questions, and the Federal Supreme Court has once again been called upon to rule on the statue of limitations regarding of the administrative act which denied Cesare Battisti s surrender to the Italian authorities and on the possibility of his expulsion and deportation. Based on doctrinal studies, the analysis of the Cesare Battisti case and the Supreme Court trials on extradition, the present work intends to study the possibility of repealing the administrative act of the Chief of the Executive Branch, who ruled that Cesare Battisti would not be surrendered to the Italian State.

International police co-operation is a recipe for success in the fight against transnational organised crime. Such cooperation has never been without challenges, especially in the light of disharmonious national laws. SARPCCO has made promising advances towards the elimination of blockages which hamper police cooperation. The joint, bilateral, simultaneous operations which are continuously carried out and the transferring of skills through training are exemplary to the rest of the world. SARPCCO is, however, struggling to make serious inroads into the organised motor vehicle theft because of the problems in returning them to their lawful owners. The objective of this study is to analyse the laws used by the SARPCCO member countries in fighting motor vehicle theft, transnational organised crime, recoveries, repatriation, prosecution and extradition of offenders. The SARPCCO member countries on which the analysis is done are Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland and Zambia. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

Within the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders is unique. By reason of the fact that custody orders are always modifiable "in the best interests of the child" they cannot be regarded as final orders and are thus not capable of recognition and enforcement on the same basis as final orders. The failure of courts to afford foreign custody orders recognition and enforcement in the normal course has created the potential for a person deprived of the custody of a child to remove the child from the jurisdiction of a court rendering a custody order to another jurisdiction within which he or she may seek a new, more favourable order. This potential for behaviour in contempt of an existing order has been exploited by numerous parents who feel aggrieved by custody orders. The problem of parental child snatching has escalated to such a degree that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was drawn up to introduce uniform measures amongst member states to address this problem. Despite being a meaningful step in the fight against international child abduction the Hague Convention does not fully resolve the problem. For this reason other measures have been suggested to supplement the Convention. The different approaches taken in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America to recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders and the measures to overcome the problem of international child abduction are examined and a comparative methodology applied to the design of a model approach for South Africa. The object of this model is to permit the South African courts to address the international child abduction problem without falling prey to any of the pitfalls experienced elsewhere in the legal systems examined. / Law / LL.D.

European Arrest Warrant is an institute of the police and judicial cooperation in the criminal matters. Based is on the mutual confidence of Member States in its legal systems. His formation was caused not only by the failed ratification of the international agreements governing extradition, but also by the terrorist attacks occurred on 11 September 2001 in New York. European Arrest Warrant meant the breakthrough into the national traditional sovereignty of Member States and that all to ensure the area of freedom, safety and justice inside Europe. Formation of the European Arrest Warrant led to the restriction of some principles, which dominated to the extradition, when between the most important ones belongs the principle of surrender of own citizens. European Arrest Warrant is the necessary means and tool of police and judicial bodies in the fight against the national and multinational crime, whose use rises year from year.

International police co-operation is a recipe for success in the fight against transnational organised crime. Such cooperation has never been without challenges, especially in the light of disharmonious national laws. SARPCCO has made promising advances towards the elimination of blockages which hamper police cooperation. The joint, bilateral, simultaneous operations which are continuously carried out and the transferring of skills through training are exemplary to the rest of the world. SARPCCO is, however, struggling to make serious inroads into the organised motor vehicle theft because of the problems in returning them to their lawful owners. The objective of this study is to analyse the laws used by the SARPCCO member countries in fighting motor vehicle theft, transnational organised crime, recoveries, repatriation, prosecution and extradition of offenders. The SARPCCO member countries on which the analysis is done are Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland and Zambia. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

Within the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders is unique. By reason of the fact that custody orders are always modifiable "in the best interests of the child" they cannot be regarded as final orders and are thus not capable of recognition and enforcement on the same basis as final orders. The failure of courts to afford foreign custody orders recognition and enforcement in the normal course has created the potential for a person deprived of the custody of a child to remove the child from the jurisdiction of a court rendering a custody order to another jurisdiction within which he or she may seek a new, more favourable order. This potential for behaviour in contempt of an existing order has been exploited by numerous parents who feel aggrieved by custody orders. The problem of parental child snatching has escalated to such a degree that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was drawn up to introduce uniform measures amongst member states to address this problem. Despite being a meaningful step in the fight against international child abduction the Hague Convention does not fully resolve the problem. For this reason other measures have been suggested to supplement the Convention. The different approaches taken in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America to recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders and the measures to overcome the problem of international child abduction are examined and a comparative methodology applied to the design of a model approach for South Africa. The object of this model is to permit the South African courts to address the international child abduction problem without falling prey to any of the pitfalls experienced elsewhere in the legal systems examined. / Law / LL.D.

La thèse se propose de déterminer dans quelle mesure on peut appliquer la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés (la Charte) pour protéger la personne qui fait l’objet d’une procédure d’extradition au Canada contre les violations potentielles de ses droits constitutionnels dans l’État requérant. À cette question, la jurisprudence a toujours apporté une réponse négative. Elle a même établi un principe selon lequel la Charte ne peut recevoir d'application extraterritoriale en matière d'extradition. Trois arguments ont été avancés en faveur de ce principe : l'argument tiré de l'art. 32 de la Charte, l'argument de la courtoisie internationale, et enfin le principe de respect des différences dans d'autres ressorts. Pour protéger la personne réclamée face à l’État requérant, la jurisprudence a plutôt mis en place un test basé sur un processus de pondération, à savoir le test du « choc de la conscience ». Ce test a pour principale conséquence que les droits constitutionnels de l’extradable ne constituent pas un motif obligatoire de refus de l’extradition, mais constituent plutôt des facteurs parmi d’autres que le ministre de la Justice doit prendre en considération dans l’exercice de son pouvoir discrétionnaire d’extrader. La jurisprudence considère même que l’ensemble de ces facteurs a un « aspect juridique négligeable ». En réalité, la jurisprudence canadienne s’est largement inspirée en la matière du droit américain, parfois en le déformant, au détriment des dispositions pertinentes du droit canadien. Or, le droit américain, contrairement à la majorité des pays démocratiques, accorde une piètre protection à la personne qui fait l’objet d’une procédure d’extradition. Le résultat en est une insatisfaction générale à l’égard du droit canadien de l’extradition au point que le Comité permanent de la justice et des droits de la personne de la Chambre des communes a récemment présenté un rapport qui vise à moderniser le droit canadien de l’extradition afin qu’il respecte les droits de la personne réclamée. Après avoir montré que les arguments avancés par la jurisprudence à la faveur du principe de l’inapplication extraterritoriale de la Charte en matière d'extradition sont, avec égards, mal fondés, nous démontrerons que l’application extraterritoriale de la Charte dans ce domaine est, au contraire, requise par un principe cardinal en droit constitutionnel, à savoir la présomption de conformité de la Charte au droit international des droits de la personne. À la lumière de ce constat, nous soutenons que les textes actuels sont largement suffisants pour protéger la personne réclamée face à l’État requérant et que le problème réside plutôt dans l'application qui en a été faite par les tribunaux. Le principe de respect des différences dans les autres ressorts contient cependant une part de vérité. Si pour accorder l’extradition, chaque État exige le respect des droits de la personne garantis par sa propre Constitution ou par son propre ordre juridique, l'extradition en tant que mécanisme de coopération internationale en matière pénale sera certainement bloquée. Il est impossible dans ces conditions de soutenir que tous les droits garantis par la Charte peuvent constituer des obstacles à l'extradition. L'issue du problème se trouve à notre avis dans le recours à la doctrine de la « public policy », une notion bien connue en droit international privé canadien et dans le domaine de la coopération judiciaire internationale au Canada, où elle joue une fonction « corrective » qui vise à ajuster les règles normalement applicables afin de protéger les valeurs morales fondamentales de l'ordre juridique canadien. Nous soutenons que l’extradition doit être refusée si elle a pour conséquence de transgresser la politique publique du Canada, autrement dit, si elle contrevient aux valeurs morales fondamentales de l'ordre juridique canadien. Dans ce contexte, nous proposons un nouveau cadre d’analyse, une solution clé en main pour les tribunaux qui, sans modifier les textes existants, permet de respecter non seulement nos engagements internationaux en matière de protection des droits de la personne, mais aussi de préserver la cohérence interne de la méthode d’interprétation de la Charte, tout en respectant les spécificités du droit de l’extradition. / This thesis aims to ascertain the extent to which the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) can be applied extraterritorially to safeguard individuals involved in extradition proceedings in Canada against potential violations of their constitutional rights in the requesting state. Courts have consistently responded negatively to this question, asserting that the Charter does not apply extraterritorially in the context of extradition. Three rationales have been put forward in favor of this principle: the argument drawn from art. 32 of the Charter, the argument of international comity, and finally the principle of respect for differences in other jurisdictions. To protect the rights of the person sought against the requesting state, courts have introduced a test based on a balancing process, namely the “shocks the conscience” test. Under this test, the constitutional rights of the requested person are not a mandatory ground for refusal but rather one of several factors considered by the Minister of Justice when deciding whether to grant extradition. According to case law, all these factors have a “negligible legal aspect”. In fact, Canadian courts have heavily relied on American law in this matter, sometimes distorting it to the detriment of relevant Canadian legal provisions. The issue lies in the fact that, unlike the majority of democratic nations, American law offers poor protections for individuals facing extradition proceedings. This has led to widespread dissatisfaction with Canadian extradition law, prompting the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to present a recent report aimed at modernizing the law to ensure it respects the rights of requested individuals. After highlighting that the arguments put forward by case law in favor of the principle of extraterritorial inapplicability of the Charter in extradition matters are, with respect, unfounded, I will argue that, on the contrary, the extraterritorial application of the Charter in this area is required by a fundamental principle of constitutional law, namely the presumption of conformity of the Charter with international human rights law. Considering this observation, I maintain that current texts are largely sufficient to protect individuals sought against the requesting State, and that the problem lies rather in the way they have been applied by the courts. The principle of respect for differences in other jurisdictions, however, contains a grain of truth. If, in order to grant extradition, each State requires respect for the human rights guaranteed by its own Constitution or legal system, extradition as a mechanism for international cooperation in criminal matters will certainly be blocked. It is impossible in these conditions to argue that all the rights guaranteed by the Charter can constitute obstacles to extradition. In my view, the solution lies in the use of the doctrine of "public policy", a concept well known in Canadian private international law and in the Canadian law of international judicial cooperation, where it plays a "corrective" function aimed at adjusting the rules normally applicable in order to protect the fundamental moral values of the Canadian legal order. Extradition must be denied if it would transgress Canadian public policy. In this context, I propose a new analytical framework—a turnkey solution for courts—that respects our international obligations to protect human rights without modifying existing texts. This approach also preserves internal coherence in interpreting the Charter while taking into account specificities of extradition law.