The U.S. Supreme Court case Karadzole, Consul General of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, et al. v. Artukovic in 1957 revolved around the extradition request for Andrija Artukovic to the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPRY). Artukovic was a Croatian politician who had served as Minister during World War II and was accused by FPRY authorities of committing war crimes and genocide against Serbs, Jews, and Roma people. The Yugoslav government sought his extradition from the United States where he lived after fleeing Europe post-war under an assumed name. However, Artukovic contested this request on grounds that it violated due process rights because he would not receive a fair trial in Yugoslavia due to political bias against him there; also arguing that his alleged crimes did not fall within any existing treaty between US and FPRY allowing for such extraditions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Karadzole (representing FPRY), stating that while courts can review whether or not an offense is covered by an applicable treaty - they cannot assess probable cause nor evaluate foreign legal systems' fairness when considering extradition requests.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Karadzole, Consul General of Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, et al. v. Artukovic argued that the majority had erred in its interpretation and application of international law principles regarding diplomatic immunity. The dissent emphasized that under customary international law and treaty obligations, a foreign consul should be immune from jurisdiction for acts performed within his official capacity unless there is express waiver by the sending state. It was contended that this principle applied even if those acts were alleged to constitute serious crimes under domestic or international law. Furthermore, it was suggested that any exceptions to this rule should be narrowly construed so as not to undermine the purpose and effectiveness of diplomatic immunity which is meant to facilitate peaceful relations between states through diplomacy rather than litigation.