•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Part I of this Article will provide a brief background to the fight against terrorism as seen from an inter-American legal and institutional standpoint. Part II will discuss the more significant details of the Convention and the negotiations in the Permanent Council's Working Group that produced it. In II(A), the authors review the conflicting views among delegates about whether the OAS should have been negotiating a “comprehensive” anti-terrorism treaty (complete with a legal definition of terrorist acts) or follow the suggestion of the United States and adopt a less ambitious treaty providing some “added value” (by incorporating by reference the law-making of previous United Nations (“U.N.”) terrorism treaties). In II(B), the authors discuss treaty provisions dedicated to cooperation among hemispheric governments. In II(C), the Article explains treaty provisions on denying terrorists the benefits of asylum, refugee status, and the political offense exception in extradition law. In II(D), the treaty's role as a supplement to other extradition treaties is noted. In II(E), the Article discusses what the treaty says about the money side of terrorism--what the hemisphere will do about tracking money, money laundering, and asset forfeiture. In II(F), the controversy over whether to mention human rights in the Convention is explained. In II(G), the authors discuss treaty provisions on permitting the transfer of prisoners among different countries in the Americas. In the Conclusion, the authors note that the American republics have taken a significant step forward in the codification of international law by negotiating a practical multilateral instrument.

Download

Share

COinS