Pretrial orders denying a double jeopardy claim arising from the circumstances of extradition are sufficiently final for the purposes of appeal.
By the terms of the treaty and the act of state doctrine, the courts should primarily defer to the actions of the foreign executive rather than the actions of the foreign judiciary.
Foreign court's determination of the limits of the foreign executive's power under the order did not interpret the executive's decision or say that he was compelled to follow the instructions of the order.
Foreign executive's transmission of letter outlining terms of the extradition was not an act of state where the transmission of the letter was mandated by the foreign judiciary, and the letter notes that it is not necessarily the position of the foreign state.
CONCURRENCE:
A private right arising from a treaty can be forfeited when not timely raised.
CONCURRENCE:
Although the plain text of the treaty imposes no double jeopardy obligations on the extraditing state, an earlier holding in the case established that it imposed reciprocal obligations as to its principles; making this determination should have been the first consideration, as it implicates US separation of powers, with the courts constrained from reading general principles of international law into the terms of a treaty.