The Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Colombia: Public International Law and the Judicial Substitution Paradox

The trade of illicit drugs has been a key component in shaping the diplomatic relations between Colombia and the US and shows the complex intricacies of the interdependence of international law and domestic law that result from the interpretation, construction and application of the US-Colombia Extradition Treaty, especially in Colombia. The nexus between Colombia and international law and between Colombia and the Extradition Treaty reveals what I call judicial substitution, a phenomenon that I have discovered and aim to show and study in this article. Judicial substitution generally occurs (i) when one government does what the other is supposed to do in terms of proper judicial adjudication with respect to international law, international human rights law and the so-called war against drugs, and (ii) when the implementation of effective public policies seems to be replaced by the deprivation of liberty as punishment and as a tool to reduce the production and consumption of narcotics. After carrying out a phenomenological analysis of international law—focused on the Extradition Treaty and relevant historic events— and comparing it with a pragmatic approach and an empiric approach, it is possible to conclude that many policy makers, experts, governmental officials and academics in the US and in Colombia agree that the extradition mechanism is not enough to deal with the issue of drug trafficking. Despite being a widely used mechanism, extradition does not seem to have been an effective tool as coca crops have increased, crime has risen, and public health has deteriorated.