To convey my question, the meaning of former here, I needed to write the text from the beginning.
Whether international law imposed a duty on States to extradite common criminals was once a highly controversial issue. The fathers of international law did not dispute the efficacy of the practice of extradition but differed as to whether a legal or merely a moral obligation to surrender criminal existed. Grotius took the former view and held that the State of refuge should either puish the criminal itself or hand him back to the State seeking his return.
I believe that we can only use former when we have two opposing options before but I couldn't find them here. I will be grateful if you could.
But however I couldn't say that for sure.
Thanks for sharing anyway.
It refers to this sentence:
Whether international law imposed a duty on States to extradite common criminals was once a highly controversial issue.
Not this sentence:
The fathers of international law did not dispute the efficacy of the practice of extradition but differed as to whether a legal or merely a moral obligation to surrender criminal existed.
In this case, I said when Grotius took the former view he meant "international law imposed a duty" that means Necessary Obligation.
Please mention if any part is not clear yet.
Of course you might not be in the whole context to judge like that so most respectfully I went to Google and found the original text here (Please see THE DUTY TO EXTRADITE passage, pages: 23-24) to remove any ambiguity. Referring to the whole text you can see the word "former" does not refer to the previous sentence.
Here my question was is it possible to refer to the " Whether international law imposed a duty on States to extradite common criminals was once a highly controversial issue. " sentene?
The use of "former" and "latter" is not super clear. But the section of the text is very clearly discussing the question of whether States have an obligation to extradite someone in all cases or whether they only have the obligation to do so when there are treaties and statutes that require them.
I believe they are saying that the "former" = "legal" obligation meaning that a State must, by its own law, extradite anyone who is asked for by some other gov't.
The "latter" view = "moral" obligation meaning that a State is only obligated to do so if there exist treaties and statutes to empower any extradition.
It's very confused wording, since the "legal" view is that a treaty is not required, while the "moral" view is that a law/treaty is required.
A few paragraphs down it clearly connects the "latter" view with that of a treaty being required.
If we go a little more down to the paragraph where the "latter" is discussed (On the other hand, respectable proponents ....), we can see that both 'legal and moral obligations' are the "former" and 'no obligation' is the meaning of "latter".
Actually I believe that Grotius et al are in the former group and Pufendorf is in the latter group.
If I'm right, then my question is that can we refer to the first statement of mine: "Whether international law imposed a duty on States to extradite common criminals was once a highly controversial issue" as a two-option statement?
I'd say it is actually a 'whether or not' statement in heart.
Last edited by Rover_KE; 04-Jun-2015 at 22:08. Reason: Deleting unnecessary quote.