courts abolish the dual sovereignty doctrine and recognize non bis in idem as having the legal effect of prohibiting a second prosecution.
history and international practice support the view that the United States, at least implicitly, recognized non bis in idem as a bar to multiple prosecutions in the international realm, and it should continue to do so today.
If so, non bis in idem continues to operate only as a treaty right subject to the interpretative pitfalls arising from the term "same offense," and in some cases "same facts.
253) In essence, continued reliance on Blockburger would in no uncertain terms eliminate the defense of non bis in idem entirely in extradition cases.
It is at least inferable that the United States is attempting to provide defendants some level of protection from successive prosecutions on the international level, especially since non bis in idem provisions have become commonplace in U.
By adopting a conduct based test, courts will better preserve not only the goals of providing non bis in idem provisions, but also a defendant's right not to be prosecuted twice for the same crime.
276) The United States therefore cannot continue to cling unto an antiquated view of sovereignty that from its inception was intended to places defendants in double jeopardy contrary not only to Constitutional prohibitions against such an occurrence, but also to the internationally accepted maxim non bis in idem.
FRIEDLAND, supra note 1, at 358 (stating that non bis in idem is widely accepted by individual states with respect to their interstate relations).
1990) (defining non bis in idem as "not twice for the same").
235, 289 (stating that the protection from double jeopardy and non bis in idem are found in over fifty national constitutions).
1977) which has often been cited for the proposition that non bis in idem is a treaty right as a matter public policy.