Author: Song Xiaozhuang
On January 28, four senior officials of the US federal government and their bureaucrats opened a formation, and announced at the press conference that they accused Huawei, Skycom, Huawei Equipment (United States) and Meng Wanzhou violated 23 charges.The four senior officials were Acting Attorney Prime Minister Whitk, Minister of Commerce Ross, Federal Evolutionary Director Rey, and Minister of Land and Security Nielson.Among them, 13 control crimes from Brooklyn include two fraud crimes of Huawei, Xingtong, and Meng Wanzhou on banks, two crimes of fraud, 1 telecommunications fraud, and 1 skewers of telecommunications fraud; Huawei, XingxingThrough the crime of scamming, two violations and two conspiracy violations of international emergency economic rights and law, one crime of money laundering, and 1 skewer crime of violations of international emergency economic rights and laws.Ten crimes from Seattle include a skewers of Huawei to steal commercial secrets; 1 Huawei and its subsidiaries attempted to steal business secrets, 7 telecommunications frauds, and 1 skewer conspiracy to hinder judicial justice.
Such charges may be unprecedented in the history of American justice, at least rare.Among the 23 cases of control, only the crime of Meng Wanzhou's application for extradition has begun, and other crimes are still thunderous.But honestly, there is doubt all the crimes proposed by the United States.Limited to the length, this article only involves the relevant issues of the Meng Wanzhou case.Now that the United States requires extradition Meng Wanzhou, it can only start from the extradition case.
Extraheing the same principle must have the same crimes of the same crime
To put it simply, extradition refers to those who are hunted, wanted or sentenced by a country in the country and were hunted, wanted or sentenced by the other country to the request of the request country for trial or punishment in accordance with the requests of the relevant countries.According to international law, the state has the right to expel foreigners, but there is no obligation to extradite, unless the country has the obligation or other arrangements of the country.
According to the bilateral extradition treaties between the country and the general international practice, there are usually three reasons for extradition.(1) The laws of the extradition objects in request and being requested to extradite the country are considered crime, which is the so -called same principle.Article 1 of the US -Canada Extraterage Treaty (Treaty) also has such a requirement, and the attached table also lists 30 crimes.(2) The punishment of this crime must be sentenced to at least a few years in prison.Article 2 (1) of this article stipulates that one year is imprisoned.(3) For this crime, the request and the request for extradited countries believe that there are jurisdictions.Article 2 (3) of this article also requires that in similar environments, the request for extradition countries have jurisdiction in accordance with the country's laws, which is a very important restriction on the same principles.
This same principle is not the same as the criminal name, but the criminal behavior that the criminal composition is the same and the laws must be punished.For example, Meng Wanzhou was charged with fraud and conspiracy fraud, telecommunications fraud and conspiracy to make telecommunications fraud. The United States and Canada have such crimes.There are dozens of behaviors involved.However, whether this behavior constitutes a criminal act depends on the specific content stipulated in different laws of various countries. It is not enough to rely on the same crimes.
There are no sanctions on Iran in international law
The trade issues related to Iran currently have legal systems of international law and domestic law.As far as international law is concerned, there is no sanction problem now.On July 14, 2015, China, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, France, Germany and Iran reached a joint action plan. On July 20, the plan was unanimously adopted by the Security Council, forming the main content of the Security Council 2231 (2015) resolution.Essence
The resolution has been put on hold from the Security Council 7 times since 2006, including the Security Council 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010), 2224 (2224 (2010), 2224 (2015) resolution.Even if the United States withdraws from the Iraqi Six Party Agreement, it will no longer abide by the UN Security Council 2231 (2015) resolution, but it is impossible to change international law.The other five parties of the Security Council and the Iranian nuclear agreement are also willing to continue to perform, so this has two significance in international law: First, the relevant trade with Iran has been decided from the UN Security Council 2231 (2015), it is no longer illegal;The second is that during the 14th paragraph of the resolution, when it is applied to the provisions of various previous resolutions in accordance with the 12th paragraph, the contract is not traced back to the contract with Iran or Iranian individuals and entities before the applicable date, but the condition is that such contracts are scheduled to be launched.The performance and contract performance meets the comprehensive action plan, this resolution, and various previous resolutions.Therefore, the relevant trade related to Iran before the resolution of the Security Council 2231 (2015) will no longer be pursued by international law.
As far as domestic law is concerned, the situation is more complicated.Although most countries and regions have no longer considering illegal trade with Iran because of the above -mentioned Iran nuclear agreements (action plans) and the Security Council resolution, the United States does not think so.The US sanctions have a long history. Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the United States has established a sanctions system for Iran, such as the Iranian sanctions law, comprehensive sanctions, accounting and withdrawal of capital, and national defense authorization laws in 1996.Since 1987, the US President has also issued many administrative orders for relevant sanctions.After the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement reached and the Security Council made a resolution of 2231 (2015), the United States stopped sanctions on Iran.However, on May 8 last year, President Trump announced the withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement. The United States was reluctant to abide by the Iraqi Agreement and Security Council 2231 (2015) resolution, which means that the United States has restored the laws of sanctions on Iran.But the United States is not a Lord country in Canada.Canada is an independent country of sovereignty. Like most countries in the world, it believes that the Iran nuclear agreement (currently the United States) and the Security Council 2231 (2015) resolution is still effective.
If Canada extradies Meng Wanzhou to go to the United States to violate the treaty regulations
The United States is a superpower. At present, no country and international organizations, including the United Nations, can influence or change the United States even in the anti -decision. The United States also uses her so -called long -arm jurisdiction to influence other countries' decisions.However, as an independent country of sovereignty, the so -called US law under the jurisdiction of long -arm, including sanctioning Iran, is not the law of Canada, nor is it a law in any other country.If Canada complies with the Security Council 2231 (2015) resolution and respects the Iraqi nuclear agreement, it is not possible to claim that Canada has jurisdiction over Meng Wanzhou's behavior, she should lift her detention to Ms. Meng and allow her to return to her motherland.
Take a step back, if Meng Wanzhou violates Canada law (although the author thinks is not the case), she so -called fraud and skewers (the author does not think this is the case) occurred in Hong Kong.Wanzhou did not try to crimes against Canada. This was clearly clear from the Canadian judicial department and prosecution system.Even according to the rules of general law, the crime is not in Canada, and there is no crime against the Canada.On the contrary, according to Article 2 of the Hong Kong Criminal Jurisdiction Regulations, if Meng Wanzhou does violate the law (the author does not think this is a fact), the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has unquestionable jurisdiction.In international law, when several countries requested the extradition for the same crime, the country and localities where the crime occurred had priority.If Canada extradies Meng Wanzhou to the United States, it is extremely improper. Violation of the regulations of the United States and Canada extradition will trigger major diplomatic storms. The United States is difficult for Canada.
Finally, Article 4 of the US -Canada Extraterage Treaty prohibits the extradition crime with political nature, or an extradition request for extradition with a political nature.From the perspective of world public opinion, the United States request for extradition Meng Wanzhou is political.When Meng Wanzhou Road was detained by the Canadian police on December 1 last year, the heads of state between China and the United States were negotiating in the Argentine capital.To this end, US President Trump said he did not know in advance and did not rule out the possibility of political intervention.On January 28 this year, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He led the Chinese negotiating delegation to the United States. The United States held a press conference of four senior officials and their bureaucrats, and was also considered pressured by the media.The Canadian Ambassador to China also said that the United States asked Canada to extradite Meng Wanzhou as politically and lost its officials.All these, the world generally feels that this is indeed a political incident that uses the media through extradition and uses the media.The United States wants to convict Meng Wanzhou through the media so that it is easy to extradite back to the United States.The United States thinks that this can curb the promotion of Huawei 5G and other technologies. I am afraid that it is wrong.
(The author is a director of the National Hong Kong and Macau Research Association and a professor of the Research Center of the Hong Kong and Macau Basic Law of Shenzhen University)
