美国引渡制度的国内法规范主要由《美国法典》第18编第209章第3184~3196条加以调整。引渡的审查模式实行的是由司法机关和行政机关共同决定是否引渡的双重审查制。在引渡案件的司法审查过程中，当被请求引渡人以“被引渡回国后将面临严重低于美国程序公正最低标准或严重违反基本人权”为由提出抗辩时，“不过问规则”就被美国法院用来驳回被请求引渡人的抗辩。不过问规则，要求法院不应过问一项请求是否出于善意或者出于什么动机，也不去过问逃亡者被移交后会面临什么样的遭遇。法院举行引渡听审的目的仅限于查明是否存在支持引渡请求的“合理根据”以及双边引渡条约是否可适用。在“不过问规则”指导下，法院即使查明被请求引渡人会受到酷刑、虐待或者其他不人道待遇，也不会因此而作出拒绝引渡的司法裁决。但是，随着人权保护理念深入人心，“不过问规则”在保护人权方面的不足日益暴露，这就有必要对其存在的合理性进行研究并修正。本文旨在系统介绍美国引渡司法审查程序中的不过问规则，并以其存在的主要问题与发展现状进行分析，从而对美国针对该规则的修正的观点，即确立一种更为人性化的“有限过问规则”进行分析研究。本文分为四个部分。第一部分首先对美国的引渡审查模式进行介绍，即“司法审查——行政审查”的双重审查模式。其中，司法机关在司法审查程序中遵循不过问规则，其审查的基本内容就是“过问”的内容。不过问规则遗留的问题则由行政机关在行政审查中予以审查过问。第二部分为本文重点。本部分对不过问规则在美国引渡司法审查制度中的起源、基本内容以及法理依据进行分析。第三部分同样为本文重点。主要对该规则存在的问题及其原因进行分析，并从实践中对该规则的修正以及双边引渡条约、国际公约对该规则的修正来看该规则的新发展。第四部分，综合美国新近案例处遇以及国际条约对不过问规则的松动，针对美国在引渡司法审查程序中确立的一种更为人性化的“有限过问规则”，分析其内容、实现的基本条件和意义。

The procedure for extraditing, from the United States, an individual accused by a foreign country of committing a crime is outlined in 18 U.S.C. §3184-3196. It is clear from a reading of the statute itself that proceedings must be initiated on both the diplomatic level, through the Secretary of State, and the judicial level, before an appropriate judge, justice or magistrate, before extradition can take place. Thus, a formal request must be addressed to the Secretary of State by the requesting government, and a warrant for the accused’s arrest must also be obtained by swearing a complaint before an appropriate judicial officer. The required proceedings in these branches are independent of one another, but there can be no extradition until both level of government, executive and judicial, have agreed to it.United States courts do not inquire into the procedures or treatment which awaits these surrendered fugitives in the requesting countries. Instead, the courts apply a rule of non-inquiry, restricting their focus to the issues of whether sufficient evidence exists to extradite the relator and whether the terms of the extradition treaty have been met. Courts in the United States have traditionally refused to consider questions relating to the political motives of a requesting state and the procedures or treatment which await an individual upon rendition. Though not bound by treaty or statue to refrain from looking into these matters, courts have chosen to refer such consideration to the discretion of the Secretary of State. However, recent cases and new treaties recognizing the need to more actively protect basic human rights, cast doubt on the continuing validity of this rule and indicate the courts’ willingness to assume a more active role in these areas.This Article explores the interests of the extraditee in such situations and raises the question of the role of human rights law in a court’s decision about extradition. Judicial review of extradition requests should include an inquiry into the circumstances that the relator will face in the requesting country following extradition. When the alleged offender provided evidence of potential mistreatment in the requesting state which is antipathetic to a federal court’s sense of decency, the extradition request should be denied. By establishing a limited exception to the rule of non-inquiry, United States courts could also recognize the humanitarian concerns of relators.Courts frequently purported to follow the rule of non-inquiry while in fact giving consideration to anticipated mistreatment. The emergence of human rights law has reinforced the federal courts’ concern and has made it obligatory. The federal courts are required by human rights law to bar extradition to a state that may violate the extraditee’s rights.This article examines the rule of non-inquiry, critiques its rationales, and proposes a narrower doctrine-the rule of limited inquiry. If the rule of non-inquiry exists, it is inconsistent with human rights law.The article is divided into four parts: The first part is a brief introduction of the United States’ extradition procedures.The second part is the most important part of the thesis. In this part, it is to review and discuss the rule of non-inquiry: origin, development, theory.Part three will argue that everything is not all right with the doctrine, include its limits, uncertainties, and inconsistencies. Part four will suggest replacing it with a rule of limited inquiry –or perhaps simply a doctrine of what rights apply in extradition.