An alternative response might have been in the form of a priori, a priori, of primacy status for a certain kind of affinity in such a way that it would always have the upper hand. In the past, it was believed, for example, that a person's national affiliation makes the nation-state the most appropriate forum for judging him. This is what my colleague Justice M. Cheshin was referring to, when he ruled that:
"...Going back to the depths of
history will teach us that the origin of those laws that prevent the extradition of citizens was, among other things, in the spring of the nations of the 19th century... A citizen is a citizen of his country - if you will: a citizen of his homeland, and therefore it is appropriate that before
The judges in his country - specifically before them and not before judges in another country -will give judgment, who are his 'natural' judges" (Yagudiev [13], at p. 558).
This anachronistic approach is no longer valid. Its votes, President Barak ruled in the Sheinbein case [44], at p. 638 "...are perceived as the sounds of a strange and distant passage..." My colleague Justice M. Cheshin added:
"...The reasons that have been raised in the past to prevent the extradition of citizens to other countries - the injustice of judging a person in a country whose laws he is not familiar with and whose culture is foreign to his own; the duty of a state to protect its citizens from a foreign legal system; the lack of confidence in the fairness of a foreign legal system towards those who are not its citizens - these reasons have become obsolete in a world that has become a 'global village'..." (Parashat Yagudayev [13], at p. 544).
- The first position was taken by an approach that holds that the preferred connection is the territorial connection, and therefore it is preferable to prosecute a person Where the offense was committed. The logic of this result is on its side. It is also possible to view a person who has chosen to commit an offense in a certain place, as someone who voluntarily subjected himself to the legal system that is practiced in that place. Prof. Feller also noted this:
"In committing a criminal offense, the perpetrator accepts in advance the jurisdiction of the state in whose territory he committed the offense" (Feller Law of Extradition [125], at p. 3).