Court Opinion

ID: 2964654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:00.953717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:59.261082
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                       ________
                                       ________

          No. 97-1084

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                            LUI KIN-HONG, a/k/a JERRY LUI,
                                      Appellee.

                                        _____

                                        BEFORE
                                        BEFORE

                               TORRUELLA, Chief Judge,
                               TORRUELLA, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________
                            ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge,
                            ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                  SELYA, BOUDIN, STAHL*, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges,
                  SELYA, BOUDIN, STAHL*, and LYNCH, Circuit Judges,
                                                    ______________

                                ORDER OF EN BANC COURT
                                ORDER OF EN BANC COURT

                       Entered:  April 17, 1997               
                       Entered: 

               The suggestion for the holding of a rehearing en banc having
          been  carefully considered by the judges of this Court in regular
          active service and a majority of  said judges not having voted to
          order that the appeal be heard or reheard by the Court en banc,

               It is ordered that  the suggestion for rehearing en  banc be
          denied.

                                             By the Court:

                                             _______________________
                                               William H. Ng, Clerk

                        [cc:  Messrs.   Whiting, Good, Posner]
          __________________________
          * Dissent follows.

                      STAHL, Circuit Judge,  (dissenting).  Because I  do
                      STAHL, Circuit Judge,  (dissenting).
                             _____________

            not  believe that  the  panel's opinion  reaches the  correct

            result, and because I believe  that this case raises numerous

            difficult and complex questions of law that warrant the  full

            court's considered attention, I would  grant the petition.  I

            therefore respectfully  dissent from the court's  decision to

            deny rehearing en banc.

                               I. The Treaty Language 
                               I. The Treaty Language 

                      The extradition  request in  this case was  made by

            authorities of the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong pursuant

            to two  bilateral  treaties dating  from  1972 --  a  primary

            agreement and a  supplemental treaty -- that  both the United

            States and the United Kingdom have signed and ratified.1  The

            main treaty applies to Hong Kong by an exchange of diplomatic

            notes  made in October 1976,  see 28 U.S.T.  at 238-41, while
                                          ___

            the supplemental treaty  by its terms  applies to the  United

            Kingdom   and  "the   territories  for   whose  international

            relations the  United  Kingdom  is  responsible,"  which,  as

                                
            ____________________

                      1See Extradition Treaty Between the Government of
                       ___
            the United States of America and the Government of the United
            Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, June 8, 1972,
            28 U.S.T. 227 [hereinafter "the treaty"] and Supplemental
                                                     ___
            Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America
            and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
            Northern Ireland, June 25, 1985, T.I.A.S. No. 12050
            [hereinafter "the supplemental treaty"]. 
                                                     

                                         -2-
                                          2

            listed in an annex, includes Hong Kong.2  In 1984, the United

            Kingdom and  the People's  Republic of China  issued a  Joint

            Declaration,  which was  ratified and  entered into  force in

            1985, under  which sovereignty over Hong Kong  will revert to

            China on July  1, 1997.3  In  1985, the United  States signed

            the supplemental treaty and the United States Senate ratified

            it the following year. Despite being ratified after the well-

            publicized  Sino-British  Joint  Declaration  regarding  Hong

            Kong's  future status, the  supplemental treaty  says nothing

            about fugitives  sought for extradition  ("relators") to Hong

            Kong, like Lui Kin-Hong, who can demonstrate that their trial

            will occur after Hong Kong's reversion to China.

                      "In  construing  a  treaty,   as  in  construing  a

            statute,  we  first  look  to  its  terms  to  determine  its

            meaning."   United States  v. Alvarez-Machain, 504  U.S. 655,
                        _____________     _______________

            663  (1992) (citing  Air France  v. Saks,  470 U.S.  392, 397
                                 __________     ____

                                
            ____________________

                      2The supplemental treaty specifically applies to
            Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the
            Isle of Man, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Indian Ocean
            Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands,
            the Falkland Islands, the Falkland Island Dependencies,
            Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie
            and Oeno Islands, St. Helena, the St. Helena Dependencies,
            the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in the
            Island of Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands.  See Art. 6 &
                                                         ___
            Annex.  
                    

                      3See Joint Declaration of the Government of the
                       ___
            United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the
            Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question
            of Hong Kong, Dec. 19, 1984, 1984 Gr. Brit. T.S. No. 20 (Cmd.
            9352) [hereinafter "the Joint Declaration"]. 

                                         -3-
                                          3

            (1985);  Valentine v.  United States  ex rel.  Neidecker, 299
                     _________     _________________________________

            U.S. 5, 11 (1936)).  Article I of the primary US-UK bilateral

            extradition  treaty provides  that "[e]ach  Contracting Party

            undertakes  to extradite  to  the other"  persons accused  or

            convicted  of  certain  enumerated offenses  "subject  to the

            conditions specified  in this Treaty."   Among the conditions

            that the  treaty specifies  are those  found in Article  XII,

            which incorporates a "specialty" provision,  a common feature

            of extradition treaties,4 and contains a  prohibition against

            a relator's re-extradition to  stand trial in a  third state.

            Article XII in relevant part provides:

                      (1)  A  person  extradited shall  not  be
                      detained  or  proceeded  against  in  the
                      territory of the requesting Party for any
                      offense   other   than  an   extraditable
                      offense  established  by  the   facts  in
                      respect of which his extradition has been
                      granted,  or  on  account  of  any  other
                      matters, nor be extradited by  that Party
                      to a third State -- 
                           (a) until  after he has  returned to
                      the territory of the requested Party; or
                           (b) until the  expiration of  thirty
                      days after he has  been free to return to
                      the territory of the requested Party.

                                
            ____________________

                      4See Kenneth E. Levitt, Note, International
                       ___                          _____________
            Extradition, The Principle of Specialty, and Effective Treaty
            _____________________________________________________________
            Enforcement, 76 Minn. L. Rev. 1017, 1022-24, 1027-28 (1992)
            ___________
            ("The principle of specialty allows requesting states to try
            or punish defendants only for the offenses for which they
            were extradited. . . . Most United States extradition
            treaties currently in force, and all negotiated within the
            last one hundred years, incorporate the principle of
            specialty.").

                                         -4-
                                          4

                      Lui's  case  raises the  difficult question  of the

            proper  interpretation to  be given  to  this Article  of the

            extradition treaty  and the specialty  provision incorporated

            therein in  the peculiar  situation that the  record reveals.

            The evidence shows and the  government concedes that Lui will

            be tried in the  court system of a sovereign other  than that

            of the requesting Party  and different than the one  he would

            have  been tried by but for the reversion of sovereignty over

            Hong Kong to China.  As the district  court found in granting

            habeas  relief, the "uncontradicted evidence" establishes, as

            the government now  concedes, that  "[t]he reality .  . .  is

            that the  Crown Colony of Hong  Kong will not be  able to try

            and to punish Lui by the time of reversion."  Lui Kin-Hong v.
                                                          ____________

            United States,  Civ. A.  No. 96-104849-JLT,  -- F.  Supp. --,
            _____________

            1997 WL 37477, at *3 (D. Mass. January 7, 1997) (as corrected

            January 9, 1997). 

                      The  difficult  question  Lui's  case  presents  is

            whether  a certification  of extraditability pursuant  to the

            US-UK  bilateral extradition  treaty and  18 U.S.C.     3181,

            3184  can issue in these circumstances.  For the reasons that

            follow, I believe it cannot.

                      On its face, Article XII of the treaty prohibits  a

            requesting Party  from trying  and punishing the  relator for

            crimes other  than those for  which he  has been  extradited.

            Moreover,  it prohibits  a requesting Party  from extraditing

                                         -5-
                                          5

            the  relator to a third-party  sovereign.  As  I read Article

            XII, therefore, the fairest  and most reasonable inference to

            be  drawn from the treaty's  language is that  it allows only

            for extradition for offenses that will be tried and  punished

            by the requesting sovereign.

                      This is not the  case we have before us.   Thus, in

            my view, the district court correctly concluded that the most

            reasonable inference from Article  XII's language is that the

            treaty "prohibits a person from being extradited to Hong Kong

            if Hong  Kong, as a  Crown Colony of  the United Kingdom,  is

            unable to try and  to punish him." 1997 WL at  *4.  I believe

            that the logical inference to be drawn from the quoted treaty

            language is that Article XII requires the requesting Party to

            retain  exclusive  jurisdiction  and  custody  over  relators

            extradited to it by the requested Party.  To me,  the natural

            meaning of the language in Articles I and XII suggests that a

            "condition" to extradition under the treaty is that a relator

            is to be tried and punished  in the courts and prisons of the

            Contracting Party requesting  extradition.  This  requirement

            is  subject   solely  to  the  exceptions   provided  for  in

            subsections (1)(a) and  (b), which do not  apply here because

            the  reality in  this case is  that Crown  Colony authorities

            will neither return  Lui to United States  territory nor give

            him 30 days' freedom to leave Hong Kong prior to surrendering

            him to  their Chinese successors, as  those subsections would

                                         -6-
                                          6

            alternately  require.   On the  facts revealed,  therefore, I

            believe  the  district  court  correctly  concluded that  Lui

            cannot  be  certified  for  extradition  because  the  United

            Kingdom fails to  "live up  to the terms  of its  extradition

            agreement with the United States."  Id. at *4.
                                               ____

                      The  purpose to  be  gleaned  behind Article  XII's

            words also supports the position that Lui cannot be certified

            for extradition  in the current circumstances.   This circuit

            has indicated that "[t]he  existence of such [an extradition]

            treaty  between   the  United  States   and  another  country

            indicates  that, at least  in a general  sense, the executive

            and  legislative  branches   consider  the  treaty  partner's
                                                   ______________________

            justice system  sufficiently fair to justify  sending accused

            persons there for trial."   In re Extradition of  Howard, 996
                                        ____________________________

            F.2d  1320, 1329  (1st  Cir. 1993)  (emphasis added)  (citing

            Glucksman  v.  Henkel, 221  U.S.  508, 512  (1911);  Neely v.
            _________      ______                                _____

            Henkel (No. 1), 180 U.S. 109, 123 (1901)).
            ______________

                      In this  particular  instance,  I  agree  with  the

            district  court  that  the   US-UK  bilateral  treaties   are

            "premised  on the trust running between the United States and

            the United  Kingdom."  Lui, 1997  WL at *5.  In  my view, the
                                   ___

            district  court  rightly noted  that  Article  XII's language

            manifests an  exchange of promises  between our nation  and a

            trusted treaty  partner: "[t]he United  Kingdom is  promising

            that  it, and  only it,  will try  and will  punish [relators

                                         -7-
                                          7

            like]  Lui for  specified  crimes, and  no  others.   By  its

            adoption  of  the Treaty,  the  United  States manifests  its

            belief in that promise of the  United Kingdom."  Id.  Because
                                                             ___

            the Crown Colony's extradition request in this case fails  to

            live up to this promise by the United Kingdom, I believe that

            the district  court properly  concluded that  a certification

            for Lui's extradition  to Hong  Kong cannot issue.   As  this

            court  has  recently explained,  in extradition  cases "[t]he

            requesting state must 'live  up to whatever promises it  made

            in  order   to  obtain  extradition.'"     United  States  v.
                                                       ______________

            Saccoccia, 58 F.3d  754, 766 (1st Cir. 1995)  (quoting United
            _________                                              ______

            States  v.  Najohn,  785  F.2d 1420,  1422  (9th  Cir.)  (per
            ______      ______

            curiam), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1009 (1986)).5
                     _____ ______

                                
            ____________________

                      5The panel opinion relies upon Saccoccia, a case
                                                     _________
            that involved the interpretation of an extradition treaty
            between the United States and Switzerland, to argue that
            federal extradition procedures do not give judicial officers
            the discretion to refuse the issuance of certificates of
            extraditability "on the ground that a treaty partner cannot
            assure the requested country that rights under a treaty will
            be enforced or protected."  Slip op. at 29 (citing Saccoccia,
                                                               _________
            58 F.3d at 766-67).  My research fails to find support for
            the proposition for which the panel cites Saccoccia.  On my
                                                      _________
            reading, Saccoccia indicates that Article XII's "specialty"
                     _________
            provision does not require an exact mirror-image between the
            precise indictment that prompts an extradition and the
            subsequent prosecution.  See 58 F.3d at 766-67.  Because that
                                     ___
            is not the problem that I believe to be fatal to the
            extradition request in Lui's case, and as I indicate in the
            main body of my dissent, I believe that Saccoccia is properly
                                                    _________
            read, if at all, to support an interpretation of Article XII
            that would preclude the issuance of a certificate of
            extraditability in the unique circumstances present here.

                                         -8-
                                          8

                      In arriving at  my conclusion I  am mindful of  the

            Supreme Court's seminal extradition decision in  Terlinden v.
                                                             _________

            Ames,  184 U.S.  270, 289  (1902).   In Terlinden,  the Court
            ____                                    _________

            explained that  a state  requesting  a relator's  extradition

            must be  "competent to try and  to punish him."   Id. at 289.
                                                              ___

            The Terlinden Court was asked to determine whether the German
                _________

            Empire could successfully request  a relator's extradition on

            the  basis  of a  treaty between  the  United States  and the

            Kingdom  of  Prussia,  where  the two  sovereigns,  King  and

            Emperor, were one and the same.   See id. at 284.   The Court
                                              ___ ___

            concluded that the  Kingdom of Prussia, although part  of the

            subsequently formed  German Empire,  continued to enjoy  "its

            identity  as such,"  and treaties that  it had  entered could

            still be performed "either in the name of its King or that of

            the Emperor."  Id. at 285.  In making its  determination, the
                           ___

            Court explained that "the question whether power remains in a

            foreign State to carry  out its treaty obligations is  in its

            nature political  and not judicial, and that the courts ought

            not  to  interfere  with  the conclusions  of  the  political

            department in that regard."  Id. at 288. 
                                         ___

                      The situation  in Terlinden, however,  is different
                                        _________

            than  the  one  raised by  Lui's  case.    In Terlinden,  the
                                                          _________

            question was whether or not  the Kingdom of Prussia continued

            to  have  an independent  existence  and  whether its  treaty

            obligations could  be  exercised  in the  name  of  its  King

                                         -9-
                                          9

            notwithstanding the fact  that he  had subsequently  acquired

            "the title  of German Emperor."   Id. at 284.   The impending
                                              ___

            reversion of sovereignty  over Hong Kong does  not raise this

            question.    No one  doubts --  and  the government  does not

            dispute -- that the Crown Colony  of Hong Kong will cease  to

            exist  beyond reversion to China.   If some  doubt existed on

            this score,  Terlinden counsels that the  judicial department
                         _________

            would have to defer to the judgment of the political branches

            because the  action of  the political branches  of government

            "must  be  regarded  as  of controlling  importance"  on  the

            question of  "whether [a]  treaty has ever  been terminated."

            184 U.S. at  285.   Lui's case frames  an entirely  different

            question.   The extradition request from the  Crown Colony of

            Hong Kong  does not raise the issue of whether or not the US-

            UK  extradition treaties  have been  terminated.   Instead it

            raises the  question of  whether the requesting  sovereign is

            "competent to try and to punish him."  Id. at 289. 
                                                   ___

                      In my  view, the Supreme Court in Terlinden makes a
                                                        _________

            distinction  between a state's "power . .  . to carry out its

            treaty obligations"  (a determination on which  the judiciary

            must  defer to  the political  branches), id.  at 288,  and a
                                                      ___

            state's "competen[ce] to try  and to punish" a relator.   Id.
                                                                      ___

            at 289.   The first issue  goes to the question  of whether a

            treaty partner  -- and hence  a treaty relationship  -- still

            exists.  On this issue, Terlinden informs us that courts must
                                    _________

                                         -10-
                                          10

            defer to the  determination of the  political branches.   See
                                                                      ___

            id.  at 285,  288. The second  issue goes to  the question of
            ___

            whether  a  treaty partner  is  fulfilling  the promises  and

            obligations it has  undertaken with the  United States.   See
                                                                      ___

            id.  at  289.    The Court's  discussion  in  the  paragraphs
            ___

            following its  reference to sovereign competency  makes clear

            that  courts retain the authority  and duty to ascertain that

            the treaty-established prerequisites to  extraditability have

            been met  in  a particular  case.   The Court  noted that  no

            question  existed  in the  case  before it  that  the treaty-

            created preconditions for  extradition had been met.   As the

            Court explained, 

                    If it  be assumed in the case  before us, and
                    _________________                         ___
                    the papers presented on the motion for a stay
                    ____________________
                    advise  us that  such is  the fact,  that the
                    _________________________________________
                    commissioner, on hearing, deemed the evidence
                    sufficient  to  sustain   the  charges,   and
                    certified  his findings and  the testimony to
                    the Secretary of State, and a warrant for the
                    surrender   of   Terlinden   on  the   proper
                                                     ____________
                    requisition was  duly  issued, it  cannot  be
                    _____________________________________________
                    successfully contended that the  courts could
                    _______________________________
                    properly  intervene on  the  ground that  the
                    treaty  under  which  both   governments  had
                    _____________________________________________
                    proceeded,  had terminated  by reason  of the
                    __________________________
                    adoption  of the  constitution of  the German
                    Empire, notwithstanding the judgment  of both
                    governments to the contrary. 

          Id. at 289-90 (emphasis added).
          ___

                      Therefore,   contrary   to   the    panel   opinion's

          suggestion, the district court correctly concluded that Terlinden
                                                                  _________

          teaches that this  court has jurisdiction to examine  whether the

          Hong Kong extradition request fulfills the obligations undertaken

                                         -11-
                                          11

          by the United Kingdom under the treaty.  See Lui,  1997 WL at *4.
                                                   ___ ___

          Unlike  Terlinden, the relator in  this case does  not argue that
                  _________

          the  extradition treaty under which  he has been  sought has been

          terminated because  the requesting  sovereign  no longer  exists.

          Instead Lui argues and  the record reveals that the  Crown Colony

          of Hong Kong, though it currently exists,  will not try or punish

          him before  reversion  and  thus does  not  meet  the  conditions

          imposed by Articles  I and  XII of the  treaty and the  Terlinden
                                                                  _________

          requirement that an authority requesting a  relator's extradition

          must be "competent to try and to punish him."  184 U.S. at 289. 

                      As I read  it, Article XII indicates that  the United

          States and the United Kingdom undertook an agreement to extradite

          relators  but only  for trial  and punishment  in the  courts and

          prisons  of  each  other.    Because  it  is  conceded  that  the

          extradition request in this case will result in Lui's being tried

          and punished under the courts of another sovereign, my reading of

          Articles I and  XII of the  treaty convince  me that the  British

          Hong  Kongese authorities  fail  to live  up  to the  obligations

          undertaken by the United  Kingdom.  If Lui  may be extradited  at

          all  pursuant to the bilateral US-UK extradition treaties, I read

          the relevant treaty provisions to say that this may occur only if

          the  United  Kingdom  or  authorities accountable  to  it  retain

          exclusive  jurisdiction over Lui's  person following  Hong Kong's

          reversion  to China.    Because the  Crown Colony  will surrender

          custody over Lui and  jurisdiction over his criminal case  to the

                                         -12-
                                          12

          Chinese  successor  regime,  I   am  of  the  opinion   that  the

          extradition  request  in  this  peculiar  set   of  circumstances

          constitutes  a violation of the relevant treaty terms. As such, I

          believe that  no certification of extraditability  can issue from

          this court pursuant to the US-UK extradition treaty and 18 U.S.C.

             3181, 3184.

                          II. The Re-extradition Prohibition
                          II. The Re-extradition Prohibition

                      Lui's case also  presents a  difficult question  with

          respect to whether the  United Kingdom's surrender of sovereignty

          over   Hong  Kong  to  China   in  July  1997   would  effect  an

          impermissible re-extradition with respect  to Lui under the terms

          of Article XII. For the reasons that follow, I believe it would.

                      Article  XII  in  relevant part  provides  that  "[a]

          person extradited  [to a  requesting Party]  shall not  . .  . be

          extradited  by  that  Party  to  a  third  State."    Here,  upon

          reversion, the  United  Kingdom will  surrender  sovereignty  and

          responsibility for the administration of justice in  Hong Kong to

          China.  In the event that Lui is extradited to Hong Kong prior to

          reversion,  the  record shows  beyond  question that  he  will be

          surrendered  to the courts  and judicial system  of a third-party

          sovereign  state  for  prosecution.     The  difficulty  lies  in

          determining whether reversion and  Lui's surrender to the Chinese

          regime  that will  succeed the  Crown Colony  amounts to  another

          extradition.

                                         -13-
                                          13

                      The  plain  meaning  and  derivations  of  the  words

          "extradite" and "extradition"  help lead me to conclude  that the

          surrender   contemplated  for   Lui   would  constitute   another

          extradition.   The dictionary  definition of "extradite"  is, "To

          deliver up,  as to another state or nation."  Funk & Wagnalls New
                                                        ___________________

          Comprehensive  International Dictionary  of the  English Language
          _________________________________________________________________

          450   (1978).     "Extradition"  is   alternatively  defined   in

          dictionaries  as,  "The  surrender  of  an  accused person  by  a

          government to the justice of another government, or of a prisoner

          by  one authority  to  another," id.,  as  "the surrender  of  an
                                           ___

          alleged fugitive from  justice or criminal by one  state, nation,

          or  authority to  another," The  Random House  Dictionary of  the
                                      _____________________________________

          English Language 685  (2d ed.  1987), and as,  "The surrender  or
          ________________

          delivery of  an alleged criminal usu[ually]  under the provisions

          of a treaty  or statute by one country, state,  or other power to

          another having jurisdiction  to try the charge."  Webster's Third
                                                            _______________

          International Dictionary 806 (1986).6
          ________________________

                      Legal  usage has  followed the word's  plain meaning.

          Black's   Law   Dictionary  defines   "extradition"   by  closely

          paraphrasing the formula given  in Terlinden, wherein the Supreme
                                             _________

                                
            ____________________

                      6The derivation of the English word is from the
            French, Old French and ultimately Latin equivalents.
            Specifically, the English "extradition" stems from a Latin
            union of the prefix ex- [out] and traditio [a delivery or
                                __            ________
            surrender], the latter word flowing from traditus, the past
                                                     ________
            participle of tradere [to deliver], which, in turn, stems
                          _______
            from the conjunction of trans- [across] and dare [give]. See
                                    _____               ____         ___
            Funk & Wagnalls New Comprehensive International Dictionary of
            _____________________________________________________________
            the English Language 450, 1330 (1978).
            ____________________

                                         -14-
                                          14

          Court defined "[e]xtradition" as "the surrender  by one nation to
                                            _______________________________

          another of  an  individual accused  or  convicted of  an  offence
          __________________________

          outside   its  own   territory,   and  within   the   territorial

          jurisdiction of the other,  which, being competent to try  and to

          punish him,  demands the  surrender." 184  U.S. at  289 (emphasis

          added); Black's Law Dictionary 526 (5th ed. 1979)  (replacing the
                  ______________________

          word "nation" with "state or country").

                      International practice is consistent with  this legal

          usage  of the  term.  Prohibitions on  re-extradition, like  that

          found  in   Article  XII,  are  fundamental   features  of  "many

          [extradition]  treaties" that  are generally interpreted  to give

          force  to the broad principle of international law that "a person

          extradited  to one  state  may  not  be extradited  or  otherwise
                                                  _________________________

          surrendered  to  a third  state  for  prosecution."   Restatement
          _________________________________________________

          (Third) of Foreign Relations Law   477 cmt. d.

                      The operative  plain meaning  of the word,  its legal

          usage,  international practice,  and its  etymological derivation

          all  indicate that the surrender  which the record  shows and the

          government  concedes  is  contemplated for  Lui  would constitute

          another  extradition.   Upon reversion,  the United  Kingdom will

          surrender sovereignty to China  as well as surrender jurisdiction

          over  and custody  of criminal  defendants like  Lui.   Using the

          Terlinden definition, on the peculiar circumstances in this case,
          _________

          upon reversion: (1) Lui  will be "surrender[ed] by one  nation to

          another";  (2) he  will be  "an individual  accused .  . .  of an

                                         -15-
                                          15

          offence  outside  [the extraditing  authority's]  own territory,"

          because authority over  that territory will pass from  the United

          Kingdom to China; (3) the offenses for which Lui is accused "will

          be  within  the   territorial  jurisdiction"  of   the  receiving

          authority, viz.,  China; and  (4) the receiving  authority, under
                     ____

          Sino-British  international  agreements,  specifically the  Joint

          Declaration regarding reversion, will be "competent to try and to

          punish him." 184 U.S. at 289.

                      Having  canvassed the relevant  sources that  help to

          illuminate the meaning of the word  "extradition," I believe that

          the revealed reality that the Crown Colony will surrender custody

          over Lui and jurisdiction  over his criminal case to  the Chinese

          successor regime contemplates another extradition in violation of

          Article  XII  of  the  US-UK bilateral  extradition  treaty.    A

          decision of the Ninth Circuit, on which the panel opinion  in the

          instant case relies, reaches a contrary result.  See Oen Yin-Choy
                                                           ___ ____________

          v.  Robinson, 858 F.2d 1400,  1403-04 (9th Cir.  1988).  Starting
              ________

          from the premise that this case is not controlling in this court,

          this circuit should  decline to  follow this  decision because  I

          believe  that its  argument is  neither thorough  nor persuasive.

          Moreover, the Ninth  Circuit was  faced by a  fact pattern  quite

          unlike the  heightened and unique circumstances  present in Lui's

          case  and  thus  was not  required  to  squarely  face the  issue

          presented here.

                                         -16-
                                          16

                      In Oen, the United  States Attorney, acting on behalf
                         ___

          of  the United  Kingdom  and  the  Crown  Colony  of  Hong  Kong,

          initiated extradition  proceedings against  Oen in April  1987, a

          full decade before the scheduled date of reversion.  Id. at 1403.
                                                               ___

          Oen  was charged  with false  accounting and  publishing a  false

          statement, extraditable  offenses under Article III  of the US-UK

          extradition  treaty.   Id. at 1405.   Oen  argued that  if he was
                                 ___

          extradited  and convicted  then the  possibility existed  that he

          would  remain  incarcerated  beyond July  1,  1997,  the  date of

          reversion.  He argued that this  hypothetical scenario would have

          the  effect of extraditing him  to China in  violation of Article

          XII of the treaty. Id. at 1403.
                             ___

                      The Ninth  Circuit disagreed  and concluded  that the

          Terlinden  definition  of  "extradition"  meant  that  "[n]either
          _________

          deportation  nor surrender  other  than in  response to  a demand

          pursuant  to  Treaty  constitutes  extradition."   Id.  at  1404.
                                                             ___

          Having thus rephrased the Terlinden definition, the Ninth Circuit
                                    _________

          panel concluded  that "even  if Oen  becomes  subject to  Chinese
                                 ________

          authority pursuant to a reversion of sovereignty upon cession and

          termination of the British lease  of Hong Kong, he will not  have

          been extradited to China." Id. (emphasis added).
                                     ___

                      I find the Oen court's  conclusion unsatisfactory for
                                 ___

          three reasons.   First, as my previous  discussion elaborates, it

          does not follow from  either the commonly settled meaning  of the

          word  "extradition"  or  the  term's operative  legal  usage,  as

                                         -17-
                                          17

          manifested  by  the  Supreme  Court's  definition  in  Terlinden.
                                                                 _________

          Instead it proceeds  upon a rearticulated and truncated  sense of

          the  term that  does not  correspond to  Terlinden and  that cuts
                                                   _________

          against international practice and the meaning that the term  and

          its French and Latin cognates have carried since Roman antiquity.

                      Second,  even  on  its   own  terms,  the  Oen  court
                                                                 ___

          misapplied the meaning of  the word "extradition."  Specifically,

          even  if  one  accepts the  Oen  view  that a  surrender  must be
                                      ___

          effectuated in response to  a demand pursuant to treaty  in order

          for it to constitute  an extradition, then a Hong  Kong relator's

          post-reversion  surrender would qualify.   In view  of the treaty

          architecture  that surrounds  the  impending  reversion  and  the

          provisions in  the Joint  Declaration that address  the juridical

          and legal transfer of sovereignty, it is difficult to see how the

          Crown  Colony will  surrender custody  over Lui  and jurisdiction

          over his criminal  case to  the Chinese successor  regime in  the

          absence of  the demands on his person qua criminal defendant that
                                                ___

          owe their legal status solely to treaty.  See, e.g., Sino-British
                                                    ___  ____

          Joint  Declaration,  para. 1  ("The  Government  of the  People's

          Republic of  China declares . .  . that it has  decided to resume

          the exercise of  sovereignty over  Hong Kong with  effect from  1

          July 1997.").7

                                
            ____________________

                      7The surrender of sovereignty and Chinese demands
            on Hong Kongese criminal defendants upon reversion all flow
            from treaty provisions.  The United Kingdom's sovereignty
            over Hong Kong stems from cessions of territory made in 1842
            (pursuant to the Treaty of Nanking) and 1860 (pursuant to the

                                         -18-
                                          18

                      Third,  the  factual  pattern  in Oen  was  radically
                                                        ___

          dissimilar to the one that the court faces in this case.  In Oen,
                                                                       ___

          the relator  raised only a distant  hypothetical possibility that

          he  would  remain incarcerated  in  Hong  Kong prisons  following

          reversion some ten or nine years later.  No one doubted that Oen,

          upon extradition, would be tried and, if necessary,  sentenced by

          courts of the British Crown Colony and imprisoned in Crown Colony

          gaols. 

                      The Oen  court thus  did not  address  itself to  the
                          ___

          situation in this case, where it is certain as a practical matter

          and conceded by the government that the relator's trial would not

          be under the courts of the British Crown Colony.   Therefore, the

          Oen  decision did  not  fully  address  the issue  that  squarely
          ___

          confronts   us  today,   whether  Lui's   surrender  to   Chinese

          authorities  after reversion  for  trial will  amount to  another
                                        __________

                                
            ____________________

            Convention of Peking) and a ninety-nine year lease contained
            in the Convention of Beijing, June 9, 1898.  See Shawn B.
                                                         ___
            Jensen, International Agreements Between the United States
                    __________________________________________________
            and Hong Kong Under the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act, 7
            __________________________________________________________
            Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 167, 168-69 (1993); see also 1
                                                         ___ ____
            Treaties and Agreements with and Concerning China, 1894-1919,
            _________________________________________________
            130, No. 1898/11 (1921) (cited in Oen, 858 F.2d at 1403).
                                     ________ ___
            Moreover, the three constitutive parts of Hong Kong -- Hong
            Kong proper (1842), Kowloon (1860), and the New Territories
            (1898) -- are scheduled to revert to China on July 1, 1997
            pursuant to the Sino-British Joint Declaration which was
            signed on December 19, 1984 and entered into force on May 27,
            1985.  See Jensen, supra, at 170-73.  That international
                   ___         _____
            agreement, by addressing the Chinese successor regime's
            executive, legislative, and judicial powers, provides for the
            transfer of jurisdiction over persons accused of criminal
            offenses and in custody in Hong Kong at the date of
            reversion.  See Joint Declaration, para. 3(3).  
                        ___

                                         -19-
                                          19

          extradition.  Read closely, Oen simply refuses to conclude that a
                                      ___

          previously convicted, already incarcerated prisoner is extradited

          upon reversion.   This is not  the predicament with Lui.   I thus

          believe that Oen is unpersuasive and not on point.
                       ___

                                        III. 
                                        III. 

          Legislative Intent, Judicial Deference, and Separation of Powers 
          Legislative Intent, Judicial Deference, and Separation of Powers 

                      Lui's case  also presents  a difficult  question with

          respect   to   whether  certification   of  extradition   in  the

          circumstances known to the  court and conceded by the  government

          would comport with the legislature's intent  in ratifying the US-

          UK extradition  treaties.  For the  reasons the follow, I  do not

          believe  certifying  Lui  for   extradition  would  accord   with

          legislative intent.

                      The legislative history surrounding the United States

          Senate's  ratification  of the  supplementary  treaty,  which the

          district  court ably  canvassed,  indicates that  the Senate  was

          concerned about the extent and degree to which it could trust the

          United  Kingdom  and its  judicial system  to  be fair  and just,

          ultimately  concluding that  the  United  Kingdom's  courts  were

          worthy of confidence.  See  99th Cong., 2d Sess., 132 Cong.  Rec.
                                 ___

          9119-71 (daily  ed. July 16,  1986) (reprinting the  Senate floor

          debate on ratification)  (cited in Lui,  1997 WL at  *6).  In  my
                                    _____ __ ___

          view,  to interpret  the  bilateral treaties  between the  United

          Kingdom and the United States so as to allow the benefits of such

          specially placed trust to be assumed by a non-signatory sovereign

                                         -20-
                                          20

          would fail  to adhere to  the Senate's intent.   As  the district

          court  explained, "[i]t is clear beyond rational dispute that the

          Senate would not have ratified had there been any suggestion that

          the Treaty provisions could be extended, even by circumstance, to

          China."  Lui, 1997 WL at *6. 
                  ____

                      I reach this conclusion  understanding full well that

          the United States signed  an agreement on December 20,  1996 with

          the government of the  fledgling Hong Kong Special Administrative

          Region ("HKSAR"),  the  British Crown  Colony's successor,  which

          provides   for  reciprocal   post-reversion  extradition.     See
                                                                        ___

          Agreement  Between the Government of the United States of America

          and the Government  of Hong  Kong for the  Surrender of  Fugitive

          Offenders, Dec.  20, 1996. However, the new  treaty constitutes a

          different bargain than  the one voted upon by the  Senate when it

          ratified  the  US-UK  bilateral  treaties.    Moreover,  the  new

          agreement will not  enter into force, if it indeed does so, until

          such time as the Senate, to which the new treaty was submitted on

          March 3, 1997, gives its advice and consent by a constitutionally

          required two-thirds  vote.   See U.S.  Const. art.  II,   2;  143
                                       ___

          Cong. Rec. S1846 (daily ed. Mar. 3, 1997).8

                                
            ____________________

                      8In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful of the
            United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (commonly known as
            the McConnell Act), codified at 22 U.S.C.    5701-5732.  As
            commentators have explained, this congressional enactment
            "allows the United States to treat Hong Kong, where
            appropriate, as a separate entity from the PRC for purposes
            of U.S. domestic law." Christopher K. Costa, Comment, One
                                                                  ___
            Country-Two Foreign Policies: United States Relations With
            __________________________________________________________
            Hong Kong After July 1, 1997, 38 Vill. L. Rev. 825, 855
            ____________________________

                                         -21-
                                          21

                      In my view,  therefore, the recently signed  US-HKSAR

          extradition  treaty  is itself  highly  probative  of the  proper

          interpretation  that  must be  given  to  the existing  bilateral

          extradition  treaties between  the United  States and  the United

          Kingdom  under which  Lui's  extradition to  Hong  Kong is  being

          sought.  Put simply, these treaties do  not survive the surrender

          of sovereignty to China  and do not contemplate the  surrender of

          relators  to stand trial in  courts under the  sovereign aegis of

          China.    See Janice  M. Brabyn,  Extradition  and the  Hong Kong
                    ___                     _______________________________

          Special Administrative Region, 20  Case W. Res. J. Int'l  L. 169,
          _____________________________

          173 (1988)  ("Hong Kong's  extradition  relationships with  other

          states  ha[ve]  always been  exclusively  vested  in the  British

          Crown. . . . Hong Kong's present extradition powers and relations

          are [thus] a direct  consequence of, and are dependent  upon, its

          colonial status.   If nothing is done  between now and 1997, both

          powers and relations will end when that colonial status ends.").

                      In   ratifying   the   US-UK  bilateral   extradition

          treaties,  I  believe  the  political branches  have  judged  the

                                
            ____________________

            (1993).  Under the McConnell Act's provisions, "the areas in
            which separate treatment is appropriate are determined by the
            terms of the [Sino-British] Joint Declaration . . . . [which]
            grants Hong Kong a 'high degree of autonomy' in nine areas:
            economic policy, trade, finance, monetary policy, shipping,
            communications, tourism, culture and sport."  Id.  The
                                                          ___
            McConnell Act would not appear to have any direct bearing on
            this case, which involves foreign affairs and international
            law enforcement, because "[t]he Act does not establish a U.S.
            policy toward Hong Kong in the two areas reserved to PRC
            control by the Joint Declaration--defense and foreign
            affairs."  Id. at 856; see also Jensen, supra note 7, at 180-
                       ___         ___ ____         _____
            81.

                                         -22-
                                          22

          justice system of  the United  Kingdom and of  the British  Crown

          Colony  of  Hong Kong  to be  sufficiently  fair to  send accused

          persons there for trial.  Until  such time as the Senate ratifies

          the  US-HKSAR extradition  treaty no  such similar  expression of

          faith  or  trust has  been made  by  the political  branches with

          respect to China or to the Chinese successor to the British Crown

          Colony, which, if he is extradited, will try and punish Lui.  The

          United  States currently  has no  extradition treaty  with China,

          which enjoys  extradition relations  with but one  other country,

          Russia.    Separation of  powers  principles  and judicial  self-

          restraint  counsel that this court is not at liberty to interpret

          Article XII of  the US-UK extradition treaty in such  a way so as

          to  yield a  result  for  which the  Senate  did not  bargain  in

          ratifying the US-UK extradition treaty  and which it is currently

          debating  in   the  form  of  the   recently  submitted  US-HKSAR

          agreement.  See 143 Cong. Rec. S1846 (daily ed. Mar. 3, 1997). 
                      ___

                      Of special  import is the fact  that the supplemental

          US-UK treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1986 at a time when it

          was fully aware of the widely publicized Sino-British Declaration

          regarding Hong Kong's reversion in 1997.  The supplemental treaty

          nonetheless does not limit or otherwise circumscribe the terms of

          Article XII of the main treaty.  As the panel's opinion explains,

          the supplemental treaty, as  ratified by the Senate in  1986, "is

          entirely silent on the question  of reversion."  Slip op.  at 11.

          Because  Article XII, on my  reading, allows only for extradition

                                         -23-
                                          23

          for offenses that  can be  tried and punished  by the  requesting

          sovereign, and  because the  supplemental treaty does  not create

          any  exception  for  reversion-affected  relators  like  Lui, the

          treaty, as  I read it and as  the district court found, indicates

          that  no right to demand extradition and no corresponding duty to

          surrender Lui exists  where it is conceded  that Lui will not  be

          tried  under  courts of  the  United  Kingdom  or  its  dependent

          territories. 

                      This silence  in the  face of Article  XII's apparent

          requirement  that relators are only  to be tried  by the judicial

          authorities of the two Contracting Parties is telling because the

          presumption  in  American  and   international  law  is   against

          extraditability  in the  absence of  any treaty-created  right or

          obligation.   Applicable  Supreme  Court   precedent  and  "[t]he

          principles of international law recognize no right to extradition

          apart from treaty.  While a  government may, if agreeable to  its

          own  constitution and  laws,  voluntarily exercise  the power  to
                                        ___________

          surrender  a fugitive from justice  to the country  from which he

          has fled . . . the legal right  to demand his extradition and the
                         __________________________                 _______

          correlative  duty to surrender him to the demanding country exist
          ______________________________                              _____

          only when  created by treaty."  Factor v. Laubenheimer,  290 U.S.
          ____________________________    ______    ____________

          276, 287 (1933)  (emphasis added);  see also 18  U.S.C.     3181,
                                              ___ ____

                                         -24-
                                          24

          3184; Restatement (Third) of  Foreign Relations Law   475  & cmt.

          a.9  

                      Despite  the foregoing,  the panel  opinion construes

          the US-UK treaties as requiring Lui's extradition to Hong Kong by

          invoking, inter  alia, the  principles that extradition  treaties
                    _____  ____

          are to be construed  liberally in favor of enforcement,  see slip
                                                                   ___

          op. at 15 (citing Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. at 298), and with  great
                            ____________

          deference to  executive branch  interpretation. See id.  at 14-15
                                                          ___ ___

          (citing  Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. at 295; Howard, 996 F.2d at 1330-
                   ____________                   ______

          31 & n.6).

                                
            ____________________

                      9The United States recognizes only one statutory
            exception to this principle.  Specifically, 18 U.S.C.  
            3181(b) permits "the surrender of persons, other than
            citizens, nationals, or permanent residents of the United
            States, who have committed crimes of violence against
            nationals of the United States in foreign countries without
            regard to the existence of any treaty of extradition" upon
            the fulfillment of certain criteria.  The instant case
            involves allegations of economic crimes and thus does not
            implicate this recently and narrowly drawn exception to the
            generally operative principle of American and public
            international law.  
                      As the quotation from Laubenheimer indicates, it
                                            ____________
            should be understood that this opinion draws a distinction
            between voluntary extradition and extraditability as of right
            or obligation.  "[I]t is now clear that apart from a treaty a
            state has no duty to deliver up a person who has sought
            asylum within its boundaries.  If the state wishes, it can
            afford him a refuge and protection . . . . Of course, a state
            is under no duty to afford asylum to a fugitive; it may expel
            him from its territories if it choose, and without complaint
            from the individual who is expelled."  United States ex rel.
                                                   _____________________
            Donnelly v. Mulligan, 74 F.2d 220, 222 (2d Cir. 1934).  This
            ________    ________
            distinction may appear academic in light of the government's
            expressed desire to extradite Lui in this case, but it is a
            distinction that is not without significance.

                                         -25-
                                          25

                      These  arguments,  while  worthy   of  consideration,

          ultimately fail to justify  a result that does not  correspond to

          the relevant  treaty provisions in Articles  I and XII or  to the

          congressional intent  reflected therein,  viz.,  that the  United
                                                    ____

          States agrees to extradite fugitives sought by authorities in the

          United Kingdom and its dependent territories to be  prosecuted in

          the  courts and under  the law of  those jurisdictions.   I agree

          with  the  district  court that  a  refusal  to  certify Lui  for

          extradition  requires  no  untoward  judicial  interference  with

          prerogatives constitutionally entrusted  in the executive  branch

          of government.  On the contrary, separation  of powers principles

          and  the  prevention  of  undue encroachment  upon  the  Senate's

          constitutional  prerogatives counsel  against certifying  Lui for

          extradition under the peculiar circumstances present in his case.

                      Specifically,   I   do   not  agree   that   refusing

          certification in  Lui's case  along the  lines that the  district

          court  established   implies  any  judicial   arrogation  of  the

          executive's power over our  affairs with foreign nations.   Under

          the analysis ably laid  out by the district court, the refusal to

          certify Lui's  extraditability does not stem  from any assessment

          or judgment about the fairness  or trustworthiness of the Chinese

          judicial or penal systems, a determination that the third  branch

          of government is not  generally empowered or as qualified  as the

          political  branches  to  make.    The  district  court  correctly

                                         -26-
                                          26

          concluded that  the certification  question is an  entirely legal

          one and that     

                    it would  not matter if  China's legal system
                    were  more efficient  and humane  than either
                    the United States'  or the United  Kingdom's.
                    The  bottom line  is  that the  terms of  the
                    Treaty  do  not  allow  extradition  when the
                    requesting sovereign is unable to try  and to
                    punish the  relator.  [And t]he  Crown Colony
                    of Hong  Kong will  be unable to  try and  to
                    punish Lui prior to reversion. 

          Lui, 1997 WL at *6.
          ___

                      I  therefore cannot agree  with an  interpretation of

          the US-UK  bilateral treaties that would  permit circumstances to

          conspire so as to allow  a relator to be extradited to  Hong Kong

          where the practical reality is that China, a sovereign state with

          which the United States  has no extradition treaty, will  try and

          punish  Lui.    Neither can  I  agree  with  the panel  opinion's

          conclusion  that,  because Lui's  extradition  is  sought by  the

          current Hong Kong regime, the right to demand extradition and the

          correlative duty to surrender him in fact do exist, regardless of

          what is conceded will transpire upon his arrival in Hong Kong. 

                      The opinion  correctly notes that "governments of our

          treaty partners  often change, sometimes by  ballot, sometimes by

          revolution or other means, and  the possibility or even certainty

          of such change does  not itself excuse compliance with  the terms

          of the agreement embodied in the treaties between the countries."

          Slip op. at 3.  But the  instant case does not raise the question

          presented  by a mere change  in government, whether peacefully or

                                         -27-
                                          27

          violently  accomplished.   Instead it  represents a  situation in

          which sovereignty  over a  particular territory, Hong  Kong, will
                ___________

          revert  from one  sovereign, the  United Kingdom,  with whom  the

          United States  has signed and ratified an  extradition treaty, to

          another sovereign, the People's Republic of China, with which the

          United States currently has no such treaty relationship.

                      In my  view, this court cannot  fail to differentiate

          between a change in government, which ordinarily  does not affect

          treaty-based obligations,  and  a change  in sovereignty  brought

          about  when territory of one sovereign state is ceded and becomes

          part  of  the  territory  of  another  preexisting  state,  which

          generally terminates  the effect  of treaties of  the predecessor

          state  with respect  to the  territory in  question.   See Vienna
                                                                 ___

          Convention on Succession  of States in Respect  of Treaties, art.

          15,  U.N.  Doc. A/CONF.  80/31  (1978), 72  Am.  J. Int'l  L. 971

          (1978).10 

                              
          ____________________

                      10Although the Convention on Succession presently
          lacks the requisite signatories for it to enter into force, and
          although the United States is not a signatory, the Convention is
          nonetheless viewed as an authoritative statement of the rule
          governing the succession of states under public international
          law.  See Jensen, supra note 7, at 180-81 (citing Michael
                ___         _____
          Akehurst, A Modern Introduction to International Law 159 (1987)
                    __________________________________________
          (noting that while the Convention on Succession "is not yet in
          force . . . many of its provisions codify the customary
          international law on the subject")).

                                         -28-
                                          28

                      Whatever   difficulties  may  arise  in  sorting  out

          succession  questions in  other contexts,11  in  this case  it is

          clear  -- and the executive branch does not question -- that Hong

          Kong  will not succeed to the rights and obligations contained in

          the US-UK extradition treaties,  as might have been the  case had

          Hong Kong become  an independent  state in its  own right  rather

          than reverting to  Chinese sovereignty.  See, e.g., Brabyn, supra
                                                   ___  ____          _____

          at 174  ("For treaty-based relations, ex-colonies  can often rely

          upon  the  general principles  of  treaty  succession [to  secure

          continuity in international  legal relations].  . .  . Hong  Kong

          [however] is not moving from colonial status to independence.  It

          is  being restored to the  sovereignty, or resuming  its place as

          part,  of the PRC. . . . [After reversion, existing international

          treaties  involving  Hong  Kong]  must  be  read  as  subject  to

          incompatibility with the sovereignty of the PRC.").

                      Accordingly, I believe that this court must recognize

          that  the   Crown  Colony's   present  ability  to   fulfill  the

          requirements imposed  by the US-UK extradition  treaties can only

          be assessed in light of the concession that the Crown Colony will

          not in fact try  or punish him and with  an eye to the  fact that

          the Chinese successor regime in Hong Kong will not succeed to the

          Crown  Colony's  extradition rights  and  obligations.   See  id.
                                                                   ___  ___

                              
          ____________________

                      11See generally D.P. O'Connell, State Succession in
                        ___ _________                 ___________________
          Municipal Law and International Law (2 vols. 1967); D.P.
          ___________________________________
          O'Connell, The Law of State Succession (1956); Louis Henkin et
                     ___________________________
          al., International Law 286 (3d ed. 1993); Restatement (Third) of
               _________________
          Foreign Relations Law   208, Reporters' Note 1.

                                         -29-
                                          29

          Because  of  these  facts,  this  court cannot  certify  Lui  for

          extradition because the Crown Colony's extradition  request fails

          to  live up  to  the  United  Kingdom's  promise,  as  I  believe

          memorialized in the terms of the extradition treaties, to try all

          relators extradited  from the United  States in courts  under its

          jurisdiction.

                      Finally,  I am  unpersuaded by  the panel's  argument

          that  refusing to certify  Lui for extradition  would be improper

          because  it might  mean  that "any  relator  extradited from  the

          United States to Hong Kong at any point since the  signing of the

          Joint Declaration, was, if  he faced a term of  imprisonment upon

          conviction  that  could  conceivably  extend  past  the  date  of

          reversion, sent to Hong Kong  in violation of the Treaty."   Slip

          op. at 30.

                      In  the  first  place,  as  I  explained  earlier  in

          discussing   Oen,   Lui's  case   raises   a   peculiar  set   of
                       ___

          circumstances. The  record indicates and  the government concedes

          that Lui will  be both tried and, if  convicted, punished under a

          judicial  and  penal system  not  under the  jurisdiction  of the

          United  Kingdom.   Second,  I am  not  persuaded by  the  panel's

          argument that  refusing to certify  Lui might cast  aspersions on

          the rectitude of other near-reversion extraditions and thus "make

          extradition to  Hong Kong .  . .  the exception  rather than  the

          rule."   Slip op.  at 29 (quoting  Oen, 858 F.2d  at 1404).   The
                                             ___

          implication  would  appear to  be that  this  cannot be  what the

                                         -30-
                                          30

          Senate intended.  In  view of the legislative  considerations and

          determinations  that I have outlined above, I do not believe that

          this court  can speculate that the  unavailability of extradition

          to Hong Kong  in the circumstances  of this case fails  to uphold

          the Senate's expressed concerns  and legislated intent. The US-UK

          extradition treaties  do not just  implicate Hong Kong;  they are

          comprehensive agreements  that encompass  the United  Kingdom and

          all the territories dependent upon it.12  I cannot agree with the

          panel's  implication  that  the district  court's  interpretation

          would  have been a deal-breaker and the Senate would have refused

          to ratify the treaties if it had been told that their terms would

          be   interpreted  to   prevent   Lui's   extradition   in   these

          circumstances.   On the  contrary,  I believe  that the  district

          court was  much nearer the mark  when it concluded that  "[i]t is

          clear  beyond rational  dispute  that the  Senate would  not have

          ratified  had  there been  any  suggestion  that the  Treat[ies']

          provisions could  be extended,  even by circumstance,  to China."

          Lui, 1997 WL at *6.
          ___

                      To  conclude, this  court faces  a situation  that my

          research  indicates has  no  truly analogous  counterpart in  the

          annals of modern  international law.   Because I  do not  believe

          that the panel's opinion reaches the correct result, and  because

          I  believe that  the  full court  should  hear and  consider  the

                              
          ____________________

                      12See supra note 2.
                        ___ _____

                                         -31-
                                          31

          numerous difficult legal questions that this case raises, I would

          grant the petition for en banc review.

                      For  the foregoing  reasons,  I respectfully  dissent

          from the denial of the petition.

                                         -32-
                                          32