Run through all of the possible bases for Israel's jurisdiction over Eichmann's offenses—territorial, nationality, passive personality, protective, universal. What problems do you find with each of these bases? Which basis of jurisdiction seems to present the least problems?
Why did the Court refuse to accept Eichmann's argument that because he had been unlawfully captured and forcibly brought before the lower court, the court had no jurisdiction to try him?
Which other States might have had a stronger basis of jurisdiction for trying Eichmann? Do you think any of those countries would have provided a preferable forum?
Why did the Court decide that the forcible abduction of Alvarez-Machain did not violate the U.S-Mexican Extradition Treaty?
Did the Court follow the general rules of treaty interpretation as laid down in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, articles 31 and 32? [See chapter III and VCLT, linked below.]
Suppose the Court had found that the kidnapping of Alvarez-Machain did violate the Treaty, would the Court have automatically decided that the breach of the treaty resulted in a lack of jurisdiction in U.S. Courts?
What remedies does the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (to which the U.S. is not a party, but which the U.S. accepts as in large part reflecting customary international law) suggest once a breach has been found?
What entity has the right to complain about the violation of a treaty?
If the Court had found that the kidnapping and forcible abduction by persons paid by the United States government violated customary international law (see chapter X on the Use of Force) what remedies would be available? To whom would the remedies run?
Draft some paragraphs to achieve the purposes described in the problem.