From Noriega to Pinochet: Is There an International Moral and Legal Right to Kidnap Individuals Accused of Gross Human Rights Violations?

By Burr, Sherri L. | Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, Spring 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

From Noriega to Pinochet: Is There an International Moral and Legal Right to Kidnap Individuals Accused of Gross Human Rights Violations?


Burr, Sherri L., Denver Journal of International Law and Policy


I. INTRODUCTION

Throughout human history, people have committed atrocities against each other. Numerous instances of genocide, slavery, and wholesale annihilation have been committed on several continents. The recent incidents in East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone are, unfortunately, continuations of the theme of abomination. Many scholars have addressed the moral and legal ramifications of military intervention on humanitarian grounds in these and similar cases. (1)

This article concerns the moral conceptions of justice and whether there should be an international legal right to kidnap individuals accused of gross human rights violations, and whether they should be brought before national and international judicial forums. My interest in this topic grew initially from teaching the case of Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain. Dr. Alvarez Machain, a Mexican citizen, was kidnapped from his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, at the behest of United States Drug Enforcement Agents (DEA) in 1990. (2) For a promised reward of $50,000, Mexican kidnappers flew him to the U.S.-Mexico border where the DEA took him into custody. (3) The United States never submitted a request to the Mexican government to extradite Dr. Alvarez Machain. (4) To extradite him would have required an official transfer from the Mexican to the U.S. government. Instead, the U.S. Government opted to kidnap him.

Dr. Alvarez Machain appealed his capture to the United States Supreme Court on grounds that he had been brought to this country in violation of the US-Mexico Extradition Treaty, (5) and thus the District Court lacked jurisdiction over his person. Kenneth Starr, the Bush Administration's Solicitor General at the time, argued before the Supreme Court that the federal government had the right to kidnap foreigners and prosecute them in the United States for crimes committed abroad. (6) Mr. Starr contended that the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico is a "tool" that does not limit the Government's freedom to use other means to pursue "narco-trafficking." (7)

The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that Alvarez Machain's capture did not deprive the U.S. courts of jurisdiction because the US-Mexico extradition treaty was silent on the issue of kidnapping. (8) Since the treaty did not forbid kidnapping, it was permitted, Rehnquist maintained.

The outcome seemed shocking at the time, (9) yet the theory that international law permits what it does not forbid was also postulated in the SS Lotus case. (10) In the SS Lotus case, France sued Turkey before the Permanent Court of International Justice after Turkey established jurisdiction over Lieutenant Demons, a French citizen, and captain of a boat that collided with a Turkish Steamer on the high seas, resulting in the death of several Turkish citizens. (11) France contended that in order for Turkish courts to have jurisdiction over Demons, they must present a jurisdictional principal recognized by international law in favor of Turkey. The court rejected this theory and affirmed the conviction of Lt. Demons of manslaughter. (12)

II. THE STRUGGLE OVER PINOCHET

Another example of the use of kidnapping individuals accused of evil acts is the case involving General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet was under house arrest in London for 16 months awaiting extradition to Spain on charges of genocide, torture, kidnapping and murder in connection with the disappearance of 3,197 people in the years after he seized power in a 1973 coup. (13) Spain's initial warrant for Pinochet's arrest was declared defective because: no alleged offense was committed in Spain, Pinochet was not a Spanish citizen, and the UK had no jurisdiction over Pinochet. (14) Spain amended its complaint to allege that Pinochet murdered Spanish citizens in Chile, and committed torture and hostage-taking, both universal crimes triable in Britain, specifically under the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 and the Hostage Taking Act of 1982.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

From Noriega to Pinochet: Is There an International Moral and Legal Right to Kidnap Individuals Accused of Gross Human Rights Violations?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?