Dealing with the dragon : what safeguards are required to make an extradition treaty between Canada and the People's Republic of China conform to Canadian extradition law?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada does not have an extradition treaty with China. Concerns over the Government of China’s use of the death penalty and use of torture as well as the lack of procedural fairness in the Chinese criminal justice system present obstacles to the creation of an extradition treaty. Despite the problems with the Chinese legal system, Canada sees fit to trade extensively with China and continues to develop other treaty relationships with the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government wants extradition with Canada, in part to further its massive anti-corruption schemes including Operation Fox Hunt and Operation Skynet. This paper examines Canadian extradition law in the context of possible extradition from Canada to China. While not advocating for or against a Canada-China extradition treaty, the paper considers the current state of the Chinese criminal legal system relevant to extradition law and examines the primary problems and legal reforms undertaken by the Chinese Government to its Criminal Procedure Law and judiciary. From the perceived problems that would hinder or prevent extradition from Canada to China, safeguards are proposed to allow the Minister of Justice and reviewing courts the ability to respond to an extradition request from China on terms that do not offend Canadian principles of justice or the protections established by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These safeguards, which derive from diplomatic assurances, current extradition treaties and immigration law, are examined and set out in a proposed Canada-China extradition treaty that provides a framework from which to evaluate extradition between the countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".