In cases involving subjects of the same state, their consular court has jurisdiction.
In cases involving foreigners of different nationalities the consular court of the defendant has jurisdiction.
In cases involving large interests, there is an appeal from the consular to the higher courts of the state.
In the East registration of the head of the family at the consulate is necessary to obtain consular protection. Local statutes provide for the execution of treaty stipulations as to consular jurisdiction.[189]
(b) In Egypt mixed courts were instituted in 1875. This system, arranged by convention, has received the assent of nearly all the European states and of the United States.[190]
The majority of the judges in these courts are foreigners, and the courts have competence over cases against the Egyptian government, over civil and commercial matters between foreigners and natives, and between foreigners of different nationalities. Jurisdiction for other matters remains in the consuls. These courts have been the subject of much discussion and great difference of opinion.
[§ 65. Extradition]
Extradition is the act by which one state delivers a person accused of crime committed beyond its borders to another state for trial and punishment.
Many of the Continental states maintain that extradition is a duty binding upon all civilized states, on the ground that the prevention of crime which would result from certainty of punishment is an object to be sought by all for the general good. Grotius, Vattel, Kent, Fiore, and many other authorities maintain this position. Bluntschli, Foelix, Klüber, G. F. de Martens, Pufendorf, Phillimore, Wheaton and the majority of authorities make the basis of extradition the conventional agreement of treaties.[191] The large number of extradition treaties of the last half of the nineteenth century has made the practice general. Occasionally a state has, in the absence of treaties, voluntarily surrendered fugitives from justice as an act of courtesy. The extradition of Tweed by Spain in 1876 was an act of this kind.[192] Such cases are not common, however,[193] and it is safe to derive the principles from the general practice as seen in treaties.
(a) Persons liable to extradition vary according to treaties. It is the general practice to surrender on demand of the state in which the crime is committed only those who are subjects of the state making the demand. This is the general rule of the Continental states. As Great Britain and the United States maintain the principle of territorial penal jurisdiction, it is customary for these states to uphold the idea of extradition even of their own subjects.[194] The practice is not uniform in the relations of these states to other states, as is shown in their treaties. The South American and Continental European states hold that their own citizens are not liable to extradition.