70 of the Constitution empowers the Government to expel such aliens only as endanger the internal and external safety of the land. But many States are in no way prevented by their Municipal Law from expelling aliens according to discretion, and examples of arbitrary expulsion of aliens, who had made themselves objectionable to the respective Governments, are numerous. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that, especially in the case of expulsion of an alien who has been residing within the expelling State for some length of time, and has established a business there, the home State of the expelled individual is, by its right of protection over citizens abroad, justified in making diplomatic representations1 to the expelling State, and asking for the reasons for the expulsion. But as, in strict law, a State can expel even domiciled aliens without so much as giving the reasons, the refusal of the expelling State to supply the reasons for expulsion to the home State of the expelled alien does not constitute an illegal, but only a very unfriendly act. And there is no doubt that every expulsion of an alien without just cause is, in spite of its international legality, an unfriendly act, which can rightly be met with retorsion. Causes of § 324. On account of the fact that retorsion might Just be justified, the question is of importance what just Expulsion causes of expulsion of aliens there are. As International of Aliens. Law gives no detailed rules regarding expulsion, everything is left to the discretion of the single States, and depends upon the merits of the individual case. Theory and practice correctly make a distinction between expulsion in time of war and in time of peace. A belligerent may consider it convenient to expel all enemy subjects residing, or temporarily staying, within his territory. And, although such a measure may be very 1 Concerning diplomatic claims for damages and arbitral awards on account of unjustified expulsions, see hard and cruel, the opinion is general that such expulsion is justifiable.1 As regards expulsion in time of peace, on the other hand, the opinions of writers, as well as of States, naturally differ much. A State which expels an alien will hardly admit not having had a just cause. Some States, as Belgium 2 since 1885, possess Municipal Laws determining just causes for the expulsion of aliens, and their discretion concerning expulsion is, of course, more or less restricted thereby. But many States do not possess such laws, so that their discretion as to what is a just cause of expulsion is unfettered. The Institute of International Law at its meeting at Geneva in 1892 adopted a body of forty-one articles concerning the admittance and expulsion of aliens, and in Article 28 thereof enumerated nine just causes for expulsion in time of peace. I doubt whether the States will ever come to an agreement about just causes of expulsion. The fact cannot be denied that an alien is more or less a guest in the foreign land, and the question under what conditions a guest makes himself objectionable to his host cannot be answered once for all by the establishment of a body of rules. So much is certain, that with the gradual disappearance of despotic views in the different States, and with the advance of true constitutionalism, guaranteeing individual liberty and freedom of opinion and speech, expulsion of aliens, especially for political reasons, will become less frequent. Expulsion will, however, never totally disappear, because it may well be justified. Thus, for example, Prussia, after the annexation of the formerly Free Town of Frankfort-on-the-Main, was certainly justified in expell 1 Thus, in 1870, during the FrancoGerman War, the French expelled all Germans from France, and the former South African Republic expelled in 1899, during the Boer War, almost all British subjects. See below, vol. ii. § 100. * See details in Rivier, i. p. 312. 3 See Annuaire, xii. p. 223. Many of these causes, as conviction for crimes, for instance, are certainly just causes, but others are doubtful. ing those individuals who, for the purpose of avoiding military service in the Prussian Army, had by naturalisation become Swiss citizens without giving up their residence at Frankfort. sion, how § 325. Expulsion is, in theory at least, not a punish- Expulment, but an administrative measure consisting in an effected. order of the Government directing a foreigner to leave the country. Expulsion must therefore be effected with as much forbearance and indulgence as the circumstances and conditions of the case allow and demand, especially when compulsion is meted out to a domiciled alien. And the home State of the expelled alien, by its right of protection over its citizens abroad, may well insist upon such forbearance and indulgence. But this is valid as regards the first expulsion only. Should the expelled alien refuse to leave the territory voluntarily or, after having left, return without authorisation, he may be arrested, punished, and forcibly brought to the frontier. duction in contra tion to sion. § 326. In many Continental States destitute aliens, Reconforeign vagabonds, suspicious aliens without papers of legitimation, alien criminals who have served their distine. punishment, and the like, are, without any formalities, Expularrested by the police and reconducted to the frontier. There is no doubt that the competence to carry out such reconduction, which is often called droit de renvoi, is an inference from the territorial supremacy of every State, for there is no reason whatever why a State should not get rid of such undesirable aliens as speedily as possible. But although such reconduction is materially not much different from expulsion, it nevertheless differs much from this in form, since expulsion is an order to leave the country, whereas reconduction is forcible conveying away of foreigners.1 The home State of such recon 1 Rivier, i. p. 308, correctly distinguishes between reconduction and expulsion, but Phillimore, i. § 364, ducted aliens has the duty to receive them, since, as will be remembered,1 a State cannot refuse to receive such of its subjects as are expelled from abroad. Difficulties arise, however, sometimes concerning the reconduction of such alien individuals as have lost their nationality through long-continued absence 2 from home without having acquired another nationality abroad. Such cases are a further example of the fact that the very existence of Stateless individuals is a blemish in Municipal, as well as International Law.3 IX EXTRADITION Hall, §§ 13 and 63-Westlake, i. pp. 252-261-Lawrence, §§ 110-111-Phillimore, i. §§ 365-389d-Twiss, i. § 236-Halleck, i. pp. 250-256-Taylor, §§ 205-211-Walker, § 19-Hershey, Nos. 250-252-Wharton, ii. §§ 268282-Wheaton, §§ 115-121-Moore, iv. §§ 579-622-Bluntschli, §§ 394401-Hartmann, § 89-Heffter, § 63-Lammasch in Holtzendorff, iii. pp. 454-566-Liszt, § 33-Ullmann, §§ 127-131-Bonfils, Nos. 455-481 -Despagnet, Nos. 276-303 - Pradier-Fodéré, iii. Nos. 1860-1893— Mérignhac, ii. pp. 732-778-Rivier, i. pp. 348-357-Nys, ii. pp. 290-303Calvo, ii. §§ 949-1071-Fiore, Code, Nos. 589-592-Martens, ii. §§ 91-98— Spear, The Law of Extradition (1879)—Lammasch, Auslieferungspflicht und Asylrecht (1887)—Martitz, Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 2 vols. (1888 and 1897)—Bernard, Traité théorique et pratique de l'Extradition, 2 vols. (2nd ed. 1890)-Moore, Treatise on Extradition (1891)— Hawley, The Law of International Extradition (1893)-Beauchet, Traité de l'Extradition (1899)-Clarke, The Law of Extradition (4th ed. 1903)— Biron and Chalmers, The Law and Practice of Extradition (1903)— Piggott, Extradition (1910)—Saint-Aufin, L'Extradition, 2 vols. (1913) -Lammasch in R. G., iii. (1896), pp. 5-14-Diena in R. G., xii. (1905), pp. 516-544-Devogel in R.I., 2nd Ser. xiv. (1912), pp. 187-193– Struycken and others in Reports of the International Law Association, xxvii. (1912), pp. 139-161-Hyde in A.J., viii. (1914), pp. 487-514-See the French, German, and Italian literature concerning extradition quoted by Fauchille in Bonfils, No. 455. 1 See above, § 294. * See above, § 302 (3). It ought to be mentioned that many States have, either by special treaties or in their treaties of commerce, friendship, and the like, stipulated proper treatment for each other's destitute subjects on each other's territory. tion no § 327. Extradition is the delivery of a prosecuted Extradiindividual to the State on whose territory he has com- Legal mitted a crime by the State on whose territory the Duty. criminal is for the time staying. Although Grotius 1 holds that every State has the duty either to punish, or to surrender to the prosecuting State, such individuals within its boundaries as have committed a crime abroad, and although there is as regards the majority of such cases an important interest of civilised mankind that this should be done, this rule of Grotius has never been adopted by the States, and has, therefore, never become a rule of the Law of Nations. On the contrary, States have always upheld their competence to grant asylum to foreign individuals as an inference from their territorial supremacy, those cases, of course, excepted which fall under stipulations of special extradition treaties, if any. There is, therefore, no universal rule of customary International Law in existence which commands2 extradition. tion arisen. § 328. Since, however, modern civilisation categori- Extradically demands extradition of criminals as a rule, nume- Treaties, rous treaties have been concluded between the several how States, stipulating the cases in which extradition shall take place. According to these treaties, individuals prosecuted for the more important crimes, political crimes excepted, are in fact always surrendered to the prosecuting State, if not punished locally. But this solution of the problem of extradition is a product of the nineteenth century only. Before the eighteenth century, extradition of ordinary criminals hardly ever 1 1 ii. c. 21, § 4. Clarke, op. cit., pp. 1-15, tries to prove that a duty to extradite criminals does exist, but the result of all his labour is that he finds that the refusal of extradition is a 'serious violation of the moral obligations which exist between civilised com- |