No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
In RE Kam-Shu. 477 F.2d 333
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0002930000153096/resource/name/firstPage-S0002930000153096a.jpg)
- Type
- Judical Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1974
References
1 The court said: “The opinion stated that the negotiators of the treaty did not intend to preclude extradition for murder at sea by not including it in the paragraph enumerating extraditable crimes committed at sea [Art. 11(8)], rather they formulated that paragraph for the purpose of adding specific crimes which by their terms are capable of commission only at sea. The District Court accepted that interpretation of the treaty, and we also find that interpretation persuasive.” 477 F.2d 333, 336, n. 2 (other footnotes by court omitted).
2 54 Stat. 1733.
3 477 F.2d 333, 339.