page 66 note 1 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), p. 34.

page 66 note 2 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 67 note 1 But Moore says a little later: “Thus the act of extradition assumes the form of a contract; the two States being the parties, the delivery of the criminal the subject matter, and the repression of crime, undertaken by the demanding State, the consideration.” (Moore, Extradition (1891), I, §2, p. 4.)

page 67 note 2 Appendix III, No. 1.

page 67 note 3 Malloy, Treaties, Conventions etc., Vol. I, p. 655.

page 67 note 4 Ibid., p. 527.

page 67 note 5 Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités (1847), T. 5, p. 20.

page 67 note 6 Ibid. (1850), T. 7, p. 125.

page 67 note 7 Ibid. (1876), 2d series, T. 1, p. 297.

page 67 note 8 See Appendix VI, No. 8.

page 67 note 9 Moore, Extradition (1891), I, p. 1104.

page 68 note 1 Draft of Convention on Territorial Waters, Research in International Law (1929), pp. 288–295.

page 68 note 2 McNair, , The Law of the Air (1932), pp. 87, 94 Google Scholar; Hudson, M. O., “Aviation and International Law”, 24 American Journal of International Law (1930), pp. 228, 238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hazeltine, , Law of the Air (1911), pp. 40–46 Google Scholar; Wilson, International Law (2d ed., 1927), p. 116; Clunet, , “Le Survol et l’Atterissage en Territoire Étranger dans l’État Actuel du Droit Airien Positif”, 48 Journal du Droit International (1921), p. 846 Google Scholar.

The Convention for Regulation of Aërial Navigation, 1919, 11 L.N.T.S., 173, Art. 1, provides: “The High Contracting Parties recognize that every power has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory.”

The American Uniform State Law for Aeronautics (adopted in 20 States of the United States), Art. 7, declares: “All crimes, torts and other wrongs committed by or against an aëronaut or passenger while in flight over this State shall be governed by the laws of this State.”

The United States Air Commerce Act of 1926, 44 Stats. 572, Sec. 6(a) provides: “The Congress hereby declares that the Government of the United States has, to the exclusion of all foreign nations, complete sovereignty of the air space over the lands and waters of the United States, including the Canal Zone.”

page 68 note 3 In the treaty between Italy and Venezuela of 1930, Art. 22 (Appendix I, No. 67), reference is made to “all territory under the sovereignty” of the parties.

The treaty between France and Latvia of 1924, Art. 1 (Appendix I, No. 29), speaks of crimes committed “in the home territory, or in the territory of the colonies and possessions, or within the area of the consular jurisdiction of either party.”

In the treaty between France and San Marino of 1926, Art. 1 (Appendix I, No. 43), territory of France is defined as “France herself, her colonies and possessions and territory coming under the jurisdiction of her consular officers.”

The following clause, used in several United States treaties, is common: “The stipulations of this treaty shall be applicable to all territory wherever situated, belonging to or in the occupancy or under the control of either of the High Contracting Parties during such occupancy or control.” See United States-Siam, Art. 11, Appendix I, No. 7; United States Venezuela, Art. 11, Appendix I, No. 13; United States-Latvia, Art. 11, Appendix I, No. 14; United States-Finland, Art. 11, Appendix I, No. 23; United States-Lithuania, Art. 1, Appendix I, No. 26; United States-Czechoslovakia, Art. 11, Appendix I, No. 31; United States-Poland, Art. 14, Appendix I, No. 57; United States-Austria, Art. 11, Appendix I, No. 71, and Appendix V, No. 2. And see United States-Germany, Art. 1, Appendix I, No. 70.

page 69 note 1 Wright, Mandates Under the League of Nations (1930), pp. 445–447; Bentwich, The Mandates System (1930), pp. 20, 105; Margalith, The International Mandates (1930), p. 177; Pelichet, La Personalité Internationale Distincte des Collectivitiés sous Mandat (1932), pp. 81–109.

page 69 note 2 Wright, op. cit., p. 449; Bentwich, op. cit., p. 105.

page 69 note 3 See for example the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan, Art. 12, and Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Art. 3. (Wright, op. cit., pp. 602 and 608.)

page 69 note 4 Wright, op. cit., p. 450.

page 69 note 5 Bentwich, op. cit., p. 105.

page 69 note 6 See, for example, Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan, Art. 10, Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Art. 7, Decision of the Council of the League of Nations with regard to Treaty between Great Britain and Iraq, Art. III (Wright, op. cit., pp. 602, 609 and 594, respectively).

page 69 note 7 Bentwich, The Mandates System (1930), p. 105. In treaties made by Great Britain with Latvia (Appendix I, No. 20), Finland (Appendix I, No. 25), Estonia (Appendix I, No. 30), and Albania (Appendix I, No. 47) in Article 19, it is provided that the treaties can be extended by notes “to any territory in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by his Britannic Majesty,” either for Great Britain or for the selfgoverning Dominions.

page 69 note 8 See Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1923–24, p. 275, where it appears that an Italian court held that France as Mandatory for Syria and Lebanon could demand extradition from Italy of a person claimed to have committed an offense in the mandated territory.

page 70 note 1 Field’s International Code, Appendix IV, No. 1; Moore, Extradition (1891); Hyde, International Law (1922); Pan American Convention of 1902, Appendix III, No. 3; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6. Other terms used are State “making application” (United States-British Treaty of 1932, Appendix V, No. 1; Draft of International Penal and Prison Commission of 1931, Appendix IV, No. 6); State “seeking extradition” (Central American Convention of 1934, Appendix III, No. 7).

page 70 note 2 Moore, Extradition (1891); Hyde, International Law (1922); Pan American Convention of 1902, Appendix III, No. 3; Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3; Central American Convention of 1934, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 70 note 3 E.g., Billot, Traité de l’Extradition; Resolutions of Oxford, Appendix IV, No. 2; International Congress of Comparative Law of 1932; Treaty Between France and Poland of 1925, Appendix I, No. 32; French Extradition Law of 1927, Appendix VI, No. 6; Swiss Federal Extradition Law of 1892, Appendix VI, No. 13.

The Montevideo Convention of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6, occasionally speaks of a “requesting State,” though more frequently using the term demanding State. The Bustamante Code (1928), Appendix III, No. 5, several times uses “requesting State” and “requested State,” though it is not consistent in such use.

page 71 note 1 Field’s International Code, Appendix IV, No. 1, where the term “person claimed” is used interchangeably with “person accused” and “an alleged fugitive from justice.”

page 71 note 2 E.g., Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874); Resolutions of Oxford (1880), Appendix IV, No. 2; Swiss Federal Extradition Law (1892), Appendix VI, No. 13; French Extradition Law (1927), Appendix VI, No. 6; Treaty between France and Poland (1925), Appendix I, No. 32; Resolutions adopted by the International Congress of Comparative Law (1932).

page 71 note 3 See the following treaties: United States-Great Britain of 1932, Appendix V, No. 1; Draft Convention of International Penal and Prison Commission, Appendix IV, No. 6; Finland-Sweden, Appendix I, No. 17; Great Britain-Finland, Appendix I, No. 25; Great Britain-Latvia, Appendix I, No. 20; United States-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 31; Finland-Norway, Appendix I, No. 35; Lithuania-Czechoslovakia, Appendix I, No. 83; Central American Convention of 1934, Appendix III, No. 7.

page 71 note 4 One finds “malfaiteur fugitif” in Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874); “fugitive” in Moore, Extradition (1891), Hyde, International Law (1922), Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3, The Central American Convention of 1934, Appendix III, No. 7, Treaty between United States and Great Britain (1932), Appendix V, No. 1; “fugitive demanded” in Pan American Treaty of 1902, Appendix III, No. 3; “fugitive criminal” in British Extradition Act of 1870, Appendix VI, No. 8; “accused” in Central American Convention of 1923; “accused demanded” in Central American Convention of 1934, Appendix III, No. 7; “accused person” in Montevideo Convention of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6; “person demanded” in Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3, and the Bustamante Code of 1928, Appendix III, No. 5; “delinquent” and “offender” in Pan American Treaty of 1902, Appendix III, No. 3.

page 72 note 1 In Webster’s New International Dictionary (1932), is found the following definition of requisition:

page 72 note 2 British Extradition Act of 1870, §7, Appendix VI, No. 8; Field’s International Code (1876), Art. 211, Appendix IV, No. 2; Moore, Extradition (1891), I, ch. 9; Biron & Chalmers, Extradition (1903), pp. 19, 34 and 36; Piggott, Extradition (1910), p. 77; Hyde, International Law (1922), I, §324, p. 586; Treaty between United States and Great Britain of 1932, Art. 9, Appendix V, No. 1. Other terms used in English are “demand”, see Pan American Convention of 1902, Appendix III, No. 3, Central American Conventions of 1923 and 1934, Appendix III, No. 7; Bustamante Code of 1928, Appendix III, No. 5; Montevideo Convention of 1933, Appendix III, No. 6; "formal request", see Rio de Janeiro Draft of 1912, Appendix IV, No. 3; “application for surrender of”, see Treaty between United States and Venezuela of 1922, Appendix I, No. 13.

page 72 note 3 Billot, Traité de l’Extradition (1874), pp. 163, 164.

page 72 note 4 Ibid., pp. 137, 139; Travers, L’Entr’aide Répressive Internationale (1928), pp. 189, 192, 194; French Extradition Law of 1927, Arts. 9 and 10, Appendix VI, No. 6.

page 72 note 5 Hungary-Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Appendix I, No. 61; Italy-Venezuela, Appendix I, No. 67; Brazil-Italy, Appendix I, No. 87.

page 72 note 6 International Labor Office, Studies and Reports, Series O (Migration), No. 3, Migration Laws and Treaties (1928), Vol. I, p. 329: “There has been … in the last few years, a tendency to consider as a misdemeanor neglect to contribute to the support of dependents, and thus to include a negative offense of this kind in the class of extraditable offenses. In some cases the compulsory return of an emigrant who is guilty of having left his dependents without resources can thus be obtained.”