Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. American Journal of International Law
  4. Volume 60
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 60 - April 1966

Contents

Page 3 of 10

Notes and Comments

Other

Notes and Comments

Judicial Decisions

Research Article

  • Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 March 2017, pp. 385-399

  • The material for this section is compiled by Charles I. Bevans, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State. Alfred P. Rubin, of the Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense, and Bruno A. Ristau, of the Department of Justice, provide material originating in their respective Departments.

Notes and Comments

Judicial Decisions

Notes and Comments

Book Reviews and Notes

Notes and Comments

Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law

  • United States Courts

  • John R. Stevenson
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 March 2017, pp. 400-405

  • Wacker V. Bisson. 348 P. 2d 602.

    U.S. Ct. App., 5th Cir., June 23,1965.

    The appellant, J. Samuel Wacker, awaiting extradition to Canada, brings this off-beat declaratory judgment action attacking the validity of an unappealable extradition order. Since Wacker is in custody, he might just as well have cast the action in the form of an application for habeas corpus. Wacker, however, has twice tried that approach without success. In the complaint and on appeal, the plaintiff advances on all fronts, attacking the constitutionality of numerous international treaties anil conventions, challenging the extradition statute (as written and as applied), and making other contentions based on all possible, and some impossible, reasons for the invalidity of the extradition. Wacker names as defendant the Consul General of Canada, the demanding state. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person of the defendant. We reverse and remand, taking the view that the District Court has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201 ff., to review collaterally the validity of the extradition proceeding.

Notes and Comments

Page 3 of 10