"Hot Pursuit" Doctrine

[jmm99]

The US-Mexico treaty allowing hot pursuit was made in 1880.

The US Army on the Mexican Border: A Historical Perspective
Matt M. Matthews
CSI - The Long War Series, Occasional Paper 22
....
(p.53)
With the Mexican Government now fully committed to policing its side of the border, President Hays repealed his order of hot pursuit in early 1880. Under a new treaty with Diaz, both countries would have limited correlative rights to conduct hot pursuits across the border. By the summer of 1880, relations between the United States and Mexico had greatly improved. As an example, the US Army and the Mexican Army worked together in a limited fashion to hunt down Apaches under Victorio and Geronimo in the 1880s. By the end of the 1880s, the US Army and the Mexican Army, as Leiker earlier suggested, had indeed transformed the frontier into a border.

http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Army%20on%2...der%20OP22.pdf

Some good history in this paper.

[jmm99]

by Fuchs

...any more violations of foreign nation's sovereignty by specific countries...

...such a low-ranking reason like pursuit of some irregular fighters...

1. For discussion purposes, what "specific countries" (besides Turkey and Israel) ?

2. Are there "middle-ranking" or "high ranking" reasons that (IYO) allow either self-defense (Article 52) or hot pursuit reactions ?

BTW: the general Turkish position on PKK seems to be this:

COUNTERING TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE TURKISH EXPERIENCE
Sadi CAYCI
.....
(pp 141-142)
Rules of Engagement

The legal basis for using armed force is different in law enforcement and combat operations. Because the Turkish Government did not recognize the existence of a state of armed conflict in countering PKK terrorism, security forces had to operate within a limited authority. As a rule, use of force was limited to self-defence, execution of a legitimate mission and enforcing the law. Military necessity, use of minimal force, and proportionality were the other relevant criteria.
.....
For cross-border military operations, troops must be educated on the nuance between a self-defence operation and hot pursuit, and in the context of hot pursuit, operations in international spaces or a foreign territory. Any operation in foreign territory requires a special agreement, arrangement, or permission by the State in which it occurs. In all other cases, where the territorial State is either unable / unwilling or itself the enemy, the legal basis for using armed force will be self-defence.

from TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (2002)

http://www.michaelschmitt.org/images/4996terr.pdf

As I understand it, they claim an executive agreement with Saddam as justifying hot pursuit. Generally, a successor government takes on its predecessor's international agreements. They also claim self-defense (Article 51) because of PKK intrusions, etc. Since the PKK are "irregular fighters", the Turks' actions would seem to be based on "such a low-ranking reason" - nicht wahr ?

PS: In general, I do believe that cross-border intrusions are often "not worth it"; and, in many cases, are illegal or of questionable legality. Also, legal experts do have biases - for and against.

[slapout9]

Interesting discussion.
My comments as far as hot pursuit. As jmm has mentioned in jurisdictions within the US, states,counties,cities have special procedures that allow them to do this. In the International situation you would also need these agreements before or you could have big problems

Also inside the US, Law Enforcement is responsible for paying for everything they break or damage in the act of the pursuit. That could be a real issue with International pursuits if you injure,kill a lot of people or destroy a lot of property.


Much as been talked about the law in a COIN/GWOT type environment and this is a classic case where the Lawyers should be doing something to allow such agreements between countries and on a larger scale the US legal community should have reviewed and or made recommendations to change or modify any International legal agreement that is binding on the US to make sure the enemy can not use it against us in away that the original agreement was not intended. Synchronize the Spirit of the Law with the Letter of the Law.

[selil]

Along the United States with Canada there was an interesting incident in the 80s(?). In hot pursuit of a fleeing felon a Sheriffs deputy crossed into Canada and drove about 500 yards (no border crossing or anything). Stopping the fleeing bad guy figured he was home free (so to speak) the RCMP showed up. The RCMP turned the felon loose and stripped the Deputy of all his weapons, locked him up, and for several hours were none to nice. Not, but a few months later the exact opposite happened. The RCMP crossed into the United States and the bad guy (thinking "hey I'm out of your country neener neener") stopped a few hundred yards into the USA. The Sheriffs deputies who showed up helped the RCMP out, handed the bad guy over, and escorted them to the border.

Now the veracity of the above I can't be sure of because I remember it from my classes which are so many decades ago. The example stuck with me because the doctrine, treaties, and extraditions for hot pursuit involved are not fair, they are not equal, and effect each side differently.

[Norfolk]

Along the United States with Canada there was an interesting incident in the 80s(?). In hot pursuit of a fleeing felon a Sheriffs deputy crossed into Canada and drove about 500 yards (no border crossing or anything). Stopping the fleeing bad guy figured he was home free (so to speak) the RCMP showed up. The RCMP turned the felon loose and stripped the Deputy of all his weapons, locked him up, and for several hours were none to nice. Not, but a few months later the exact opposite happened. The RCMP crossed into the United States and the bad guy (thinking "hey I'm out of your country neener neener") stopped a few hundred yards into the USA. The Sheriffs deputies who showed up helped the RCMP out, handed the bad guy over, and escorted them to the border.

Now the veracity of the above I can't be sure of because I remember it from my classes which are so many decades ago. The example stuck with me because the doctrine, treaties, and extraditions for hot pursuit involved are not fair, they are not equal, and effect each side differently.

There was an incident last year where much the same happened as in your first example, Sam: the Sheriff's Deputy crossed the Peace Bridge between Buffalo and Fort Erie in hot pursuit of an armed suspect. Canada Customs border agents are not armed (something that the present Government is trying to change, but with considerable difficulty), so the suspect simply barrelled on through the Customs check points. Caused a bit of a fuss, but really, when one side will not take full responsibility for security on its side of a border, then incidents like these are just waiting to happen.

[jmm99]

One way to avoid international border issues is this Weslaco, Texas, Police Department SOP.

Weslaco Police Department
Emergency Driving
......
Section 4: High Speed Pursuit Policy
.....
4.06 - A peace officer in high-speed pursuit may never enter the Republic of Mexico, and any such high-speed pursuit must cease at the International border.

http://www.textfiles.com/law/crimeftr.023

Given the fatality rate among Mexican police officers, this might be a life-saving policy for Texan officers.

On a more northern note, here is an article in the Blue Line (April 2005; Canadian LE mag), where a very large problem is firearms policy.

by Morley Lymburner

The US Department of Homeland Security is working with a severe handicap. It is called Canada. In my recent investigations along the Canadian/US border in BC I have found that this ailment is experienced by US County Sheriffs Departments as well as the Canadian Border Security Agency(CBSA). It is more clearly recognized as the Canadian Firearms Registration laws and an awkward Department of External Affairs.

My investigation to determine if there is any common ground to get around these issues was met with the blank stares of a lot of dedicated but long suffering faces on both sides of the border.
........
Why not have a unified border patrol? At the present time we have the US Border Patrol to the south and effectively nothing (or at most not much) north of the border.
......
If anyone had doubts about the effectiveness of Canada’s border policing one need not go any further than recent events in Quebec. The last vestiges of RCMP Border Patrol was effectively abandoned in favour of a centralized anti-organized crime unit based in Montreal.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publi...ers2005_04.pdf

A good article.

Our tri-county area has no problem with land-based international hot pursuit, since our Canadian border is out in Lake Superior. And yes, Houghton County SD has a cruiser (not much of a speedboat, though); and yes, there have been hot pursuits. Also a Coast Guard station here (better equipped). No recollection of anyone having to chase to the border - so, no war stories.

PS (to Slapout) - legal review (for US best interests) should be by State's Legal Advisor's office; but that reflects a culture that is not mine - and probably not yours. Call up your friend Condi and suggest she hire the two of us. I don't mind working with cops - even ancient ones.

[selil]

When it comes to border disputes this is my favorite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War

Check out the section "resolution"... Tea and crumpets with the other side is the civilized form of occupation.