In the 1870s and 1880s, a series of extradition cases between Hong Kong and Canton concerning the conflict between treaty obligations and colonial law threatened the very foundation of fugitive rendition laid out in the Treaty of Tianjin. A variety of solutions were attempted, such as demanding that the Qing change its laws on conviction and punishment, the suspension of the extradition clause of Article 21, or negotiating an empire-wide extradition treaty to replace the article. But none of these proposals were seriously entertained. In the meantime, to the local populations, the jurisdictional boundary between Canton and Hong Kong opened up an alternative arena of law and empowerment.

This chapter introduces the key research questions of the book and outlines a theoretical framework for studying political crimes as a comparative concept. It highlights the significance of understanding political crimes as a transborder phenomenon and argues that the Qing state confronted serious challenges from the mid nineteenth century onward in handing fugitive renditions, as they became regulated by treaties whose implementation was often subject to the discretion of foreign diplomats, colonial officials, and municipal councils.

This chapter begins by addressing classic extradition, its historical roots and the key moments in its evolution, notably its permeation by fundamental rights after World War II, which has caused it to shift from a bilateral political arrangement to a ‘triangular’ (Eser) legal procedure where the individual concerned plays an active role. It assesses the main grounds for refusal – such as nationality, political offences and dual criminality –, and the variation into which they have developed within the European Union. The chapter then delves into the European Arrest Warrant, where proceedings have been fully judicialised and grounds for refusal considerably narrowed. The authors examine the question of whether (and to which extent) the European Arrest Warrant and the underlying principle of mutual recognition have brought about a radical change of paradigm, especially in the light of the (welcomed) ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Aranyosi and Căldăraru. The conclusion anticipates the challenges that lie ahead and underscores the key role of the Court of Justice for the preservation of the whole European arrest warrant system.