English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In extradition treaties, sovereign powers promise to surrender individuals who have been accused or convicted of an offense outside their territory to the country seeking to prosecute the individual for that offense. Because entering into an extradition treaty involves the sacrifice of some sovereign rights, these treaties are always reciprocal: a state will relinquish its unfettered right to grant asylum to whomever it pleases only if the other parties to the treaty agree to do the same. In addition, extradition treaties contain certain protections that limit the sacrifices these sovereign powers must make. One such restriction that is part of every extradition treaty is the doctrine of specialty.' The doctrine of specialty dictates that once the asylum state extradites an individual to the requesting state under the terms of an extradition treaty, that person can be prosecuted only for the crimes specified in the extradition request.2 In United States v Rauscher, the United States Supreme Court held that the specialty doctrine applies to every extradition treaty to which the United States is a signatory, even if specialty is not explicitly mentioned.3 Rauscher indicates that an individual extradited to

Standing to Allege Violations of the Doctrine of Specialty: An Examination of the Relationship between the Individual and the Sovereign