The principle of reciprocity carries a great deal of weight. It is an important component of a state's ability to finance its steps. It has a synergistic element that intensifies the power of countries that act together against
Crime. It ensures the continuation of this joint activity. It is an institutionalized element in the ability to maintain bilateral relations, and in the words of Justice Matza:
"...Extradition agreements are based on reciprocity. A state that refrains from extradition of its citizens is not entitled to expect that its requests to extradite criminals who have violated its laws and fled... You will be rewarded with an attentive ear" (Parashat [39], at p. 498).
And these were the instructive words of my colleague Justice M. Cheshin:
"The individual will not act for the sake of others - at least, not for a long period of time - unless the other does it for him... Never, or almost never, will the rule of 'something' hover over us: something for something.
This is the case in the relations of individuals among themselves before the existence of the law and the case of the law, and since human society is composed of individuals, so it was - and is now - after the existence of the law. And we know that states are run by human beings, so too in the relations between states among themselves" (The Yagudiev case [13], at p. 565).
On the same matter, Prof. Shapira added:
"States, noticing their dependence on each other, cannot afford the luxury of secluding themselves to the four pillars of their special interests. The needs of the modern international community require mutual consideration of national interests. Each state may have a real interest in promoting its policies or principles of justice, as embodied in its laws... Systematic disregard for the legitimate interests of foreign states undermines the foundations of a comprehensive world order"
(A. Shapira, "Notes on the Nature and Purpose of the Rules of Choice of Law in Private-International Law" [138], at p. 286).
- The principle of reciprocity is not just lip service. It is given practical expression in Israel's extradition relations with various countries. Those cases in which the State of Israel requested special mention deserve - And it was answered. - handing them over to those suspected of committing offenses Outside its boundaries, and that they had an influence on what was happening in their territory. Thus, in 1995, Israel approached the United States with a request to extradite the head of Hamas' "political wing," Musa Abu-Marzouk. The extradition request claimed that by virtue of his senior position in the terrorist organization, Abu-
Marzouk is responsible for the attacks carried out in Israel. It was not alleged that any of the acts attributed to him were committed in Israel, or that he physically participated in carrying out attacks in its territory. Abu Marzouq carried out everything attributed to him outside the boundaries of the State of Israel, from his home in the United States. On May 7, 1996, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York declared that Abu Marzouq was "extraditional" to Israel, and it was only an internal Israeli reason that ultimately prevented his extradition.