Prof. Feller demonstrated:
"If, for example, an act of robbery or sabotage is committed against the El Al Agency in any country and the criminals flee to England, the extradition treaty with Great Britain will negate any request for their extradition to Israel, because only the country in whose territory the offense was committed is entitled to receive the criminals" (ibid.).
In recent years, it has become clear that English law seeks to disavow this restrictive approach. First, with regard to some of the types of offenses, the primary legislation established an expansive approach to applicability (see the Criminal Justice Act, 1993, which came into force in 1999). Second, and this is the main thing, English case law has recently recognized the ability to apply an expansive approach even regardless of the type of offense in question. I am referring to the judgment of the Court of Appeals
March 2004, in the Regina v. Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No. 4) [2004] [116] . In the same matter, Lord Woolf held that it is possible to recognize an applicability rule, the product of the development of the case law, which draws not only from the place where the "heart" of the offence occurred, but also relates to, inter alia, the place where its results arose.
In any event, when it comes to conspiracy offenses, the British law has previously taken a different approach than the "last act rule". The adoption of a principle parallel to the "broad" territorial affinity, according to which the application of the law follows the place where the influence of the connection arose (see: Regina v. Doot [1973] [117], at pp. 816, 818; Liangsiriprasert v. United States Government [1990] [118]; Regina v. Sansom [1991] [119]).
- An examination of the extradition treaty between the State of Israel and France reveals a different kind of "territorial limitation." Article 7(1) of the Convention excludes from the extradition relations between the States cases in which the offence committed the offence Occurred within the boundaries of the required state. This provision is based on the view that in a situation in which the offence was committed in the territory of the requested State, the application of the laws of that State is granted primacy on a territorial basis.
- On the other side of the barricade are art in which there is a desire to increase cooperation between-The extradition relationship was expanded to include situations in which the entire offense was committed outside the territory of the requesting state. Such is the extradition agreement between Israel and the United States. Article 1 of the Extradition Treaty between the States states:
"Each State Party of the Convention agrees, under the terms and circumstances set forth in this Convention, on the mutual extradition of persons who are in the territory of the other Party and who have been charged or convicted of any of the offences enumerated in Article 2 of this Convention, committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the other Party, or outside those territories under the conditions set forth in Article 3 of this Convention."