.png)
QUESTION| “Asylum ends where extradition begins.” Comment. Distinguish between territorial asylum and extra-territorial asylum.
Importance of this question : Very important Law Optional mains question
QUESTION POSTED ON | 06.11.2021
MODEL ANSWER WILL BE POSTED ON |07.11.2021
Answers can be written till 07.11.2021
How to post answer ?
1. Write your answer in a sheet of paper
2. Take picture
3. Login to get access to post answer
4. Upload the images to get them evaluated
To join our telegram group click here
For UPSC Law Optional Mains Courses click here
ANSWER|Starke has affirmed that asylum stops where extradition begins. Extradition and Asylum are political acts of States and it differs from state to state depending upon treaties, internal and external policies, and this interdependence makes it suitable to consider the two subjects together.
Extradition is where offenders are returned to the place of nationality or place of crime committed. On the other hand, asylum is giving safe place for the person who are prosecuted in their home country. Thus, where asylum is provided by the country, it is fundamentally not possible to extradite the person. So, it is true where asylum ends extraditions begins and vice versa.
Territorial asylum: States have an inherent right as an attribute of their sovereignty to grant asylum in its territory. The territorial asylum is classified into (1) political asylum, (2) refugee asylum and (3) general asylum.
Extra territorial asylum: the granting of asylum by the state not on tits territory but on its notional territory. The grant of such asylum is not inherent and its extent and scope is not well defined under international law.
Asylum in legation: Modern international law recognises no general right of a head of mission to grant asylum in the premises of the legation. Such grant seems rather prohibited by international law where its effect would be exempt the fugitive from the regular application of the laws and administration of justice by the territorial state. This aspect is discussed in the asylum case. However, it was held in the case that diplomatic asylum was not granted generally but occasionally and irregularly.
Three important feature of diplomatic asylum can be seen. They are (1) Diplomatic asylum is granted temporarily, (2) if local custom is proved, then it is permissible to grant diplomatic asylum and (3) special treaty can create a right of diplomatic asylum.
Other forms:
1. Asylum in consulates:
2. International Institution:
3. Asylum in warship,
4. Asylum in merchant vessels. Merchant vessels are not exempted from the local jurisdiction, and therefore cannot grant asylum to local offender.
