论引渡承诺的性质和效力——以“黄海勇诉秘鲁案”为视角  

Discussion On the Nature and Effect of Extradition Commitment

作　　者：朱慧兰[1] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学国际法研究所,湖北武汉430070

出　　处：《湖北警官学院学报》2017年第2期22-28,共7页Journal of Hubei University of Police

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目"跨国追逃的法律难题与应对研究"(15BFX190)

摘　　要：2015年6月,美洲人权法院的对"黄海勇案"(Wong Ho Yong v.Peru)作出最终裁决。该案的关键争议点在于中国作出的免除黄海勇死刑的承诺能否充分保证黄海勇回国后的人权。法院最终认可引渡承诺的有效性,认为秘鲁同意中国的引渡请求并未违反《美洲人权公约》。通过"黄海勇案",分析引渡承诺的性质和效力,引渡承诺可构成引渡条约的一部分、可作为国家单方承诺、或作为国家发表的政治性声明,引渡承诺也可以作为解释和修订引渡条约的国家实践,或作为证明国际习惯形成的国家实践。我国在打击跨国犯罪和开展海外追逃过程中应视情形作出引渡承诺。In June 2015, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights issued its final ruling on the case of Wong Ho Yong v. Peru. The Key issues of the case is whether the diplomatic assurances provide by the Chinese government to the Peru is sufficient and effective to protect the life rights of Wong Ho Yong after he was extradited to China. The Court finally upheld that the diplomatic assurances are sufficient to protect the human rights of Wong Hong Yo. Therefore, Peru＇s consent to ex- tradite him to China did not violate its obligation under the convention. This article explores the nature and effect of diplo- matic assurances in the extradition cases on a basis of the analysis of the case of Wong Ho Yong v. Peru. The extradition commitment could constitute part of the extradition treaty, or could be state＇s unilateral assurance or a political statement. The Extradition commitment could also be the state practice that is used to interpretate or modify the treaty provision or pro- ve the formation of an international custom. China should provide different extradition commitment during the fight against trans-national crimes and the pursuit of fugitives overseas.

关 键 词：非传统安全研究 海外追逃 引渡承诺 单方承诺 黄海勇案 

分 类 号：D631[政治法律—政治学]