Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-08-15
The 'Riqht' of Asylum

The Right Of Asylum J..
is prepared to grant asylum to Mikhail
Ivanovtch Samarine and Mrs Oksana
Stepanova Kosenkina, the State Depart
ment has simply affirmed that it is ready
to do what it has often done before If
the two Russian teachers do not want to
return to the Soviet Union out of fear
OF the punishment awaiting them there,
our Government will be perfectly free to
offer them sanctuary as political fugitives
! or refugees. This is a prerogative of
sovereignty, and it has been exercised
| repeatedly throughout the world for many
centuries past.
Actually, in the sense that no individual
fleeing from one country can demand
protection from another country, the So
called right" of asylum does not exist in
international law. But any state, on the
strength OF its own sovereignty, can grant
such succor to political fugitives within
its territory and even, under extraordinary
circumstances in its embassies, legations,
consulates or warships abroad In doing
so, the only obligation it assumes Is to
see to it that the harbored refugee is
prevented from taking part in activities
endangering other nations
The practice of Offering sanctuary is,
in fact, as old as civilization itself 1t
came into being as a humanitarian ex-
preston at time when legal systems
were cruelty primitive and when Justice
was largely matter of brutal vengeance.
Under Mosaic law, for example, wrong
doors could escape punishment by fleeing
to the affairs of the ancient Hebrew tenn
pies or by exiting themselves to certain
designated "cities of refuge" Similarly,
protection could be found in the sacred
places and symbols of the early Greeks
and Romans, and up until the Middle
Ages criminals of every variety could gain
safety by going into the Christian churches.
Because of the gradual improvement in
laws and the administration of justice,
however, and because the practice had
been gravely abused by vicious elements,
the character of the asylum system under
went basic changes from generation to
generation. AS result, it came in time to
apply only to political offenders as distinct
from criminals, and even this had a limited
meaning IN many countries, the revolu-
tionary French specifically declaring that
they would offer refuge only to persons
exiled in the cause Of liberty, not to
hunted tyrants. AS further qualification,
there finally came into being the modern
development of extradition treaties under
which nations agree to return wanted
wrongdoers to the jurisdiction of their
native land.
These treaties, however, do not obligate
the signatories to hand over political
refugees. Indeed, there is no specific
rule in international law forbidding any
country from harboring individuals whom
other countries may regard as criminals.
Thus, after the First World War, although
there was much sentiment in favor Of
hanging him, the Kaiser enjoyed sanctuary
in Holland, with the Dutch rejecting all
Allied requests to surrender him for trial
Insisting on their sovereign rights, they
chose to protect him, though they saw to
it that he did no mischief The same
thing could have happened in the case
of Hitler and his top Nazi aides if there
had been any country willing to let them
in despite the high crimes charged against
them by the United Nations.
Considered against this background,
there is nothing at all unusual or sur
prising in the State Departments willing
ness to offer asylum to Mr.. Samarine and
Mrs. Kosenkina They are obviously not
criminals If they are afraid to 60 back
to their native land, it is because they
want freedom instead of being imprisoned
or put to death for having embarrassed
the Soviet tyranny. In the circumstances,
no one can dispute our Governments right
to protect them for humanitarian reasons.
The men of the Kremlin may not like the
idea, hut there is little they can do about
it either in terms of international law
or otherwise.