| Sumario: | The article examines the history of extradition in the twentieth century, to call for a broader engagement with extradition law not only as an under-explored chapter in international law in its own right, but also as a pathway to think more deeply about world-ruling projects. Extradition law, normally thought of as primarily bilateral, in fact has a long and rich history of multilateral engagement. This tension between multilateralism and bilateralism, we argue, showcases the role of technique to hide political projects in international law-making, as well as showcasing the need to include more non-Eurocentric voices in our narratives about the design of international law instruments and institutions. European nations in the period we survey were more invested in bilateral efforts, claiming the impossibility of multilateral treaty-making in extradition law; yet, Latin American states successfully undertook multiple initiatives in this realm, which are often excluded from mainstream narratives, at the cost of buying into a biased narrative of bilateral treaties that neglects how extradition law has been used to shape and hide key political tensions. In light of these findings, the article puts forth a research agenda that takes extradition more seriously into our accounts of the evolution of international law.
|
|---|
