在全球经济一体化的进程不断加深的时代背景之下，各国间的交流与合作日益频繁，虽然我国对境外追逃的打击力度逐年加大，但仍存在着犯罪分子外逃的现象。在跨国追逃的实践中，引渡是传统的合作方式，然而，随着国际社会对人权保障问题的日益重视，引渡的实施受到了一系列原则的制约，如死刑不引渡、政治犯不引渡等。这些原则在保障人权的同时，也给跨国追逃带来了很大的挑战，而且一些国家的引渡公约也对不能引渡的情况作出了明确规定，因此，通过引渡来达到境外追逃的目的较为困难。此外，各国之间的引渡公约也对不能引渡的情形作出了明确的规定，这些规定作出的目的在于维护各个国家的司法主权，但同时也限制了引渡的适用范围。因此，通过引渡的方式实现境外追逃，确实面临着许多困难和挑战。在此背景下，我们需要研究和探索引渡手段之外的其他有效的境外追逃方式和路径。

移民遣返措施作为我国境外追逃的重要手段，具有特殊的法律属性。本文通过深入分析移民遣返措施制度的法理基础、适用条件及其所面临的困境，充分考虑不同国家和社会制度间的差异性。通过对这些问题的系统研究，找到应对困境和问题的措施，为司法理论与实践提供有价值的借鉴与启示。

第一章阐述了移民遣返措施的概念界定及其特性，移民遣返措施是利用遣返国的移民法达到追逃我国外逃犯罪嫌疑人的目的，常被运用于我国境外追逃涉腐人员的案件中，该措施既有优势所在，也存在潜在不足。本章还说明了我国当前采用遣返手段实目的，常被运用于我国境外追逃涉腐人员的案件中，该措施既有优势所在，也存在潜在不足。施跨境追逃的具体实践情况，涵盖了外逃人员以合法和非法两种不同的渠道进入他国的具体方式，同时也论述了不同方式采取的追逃方法。

第二章分析了实施移民遣返措施所面临的困境。包括遣返前的风险评估阶段，其中死刑问题和酷刑问题受到重点关注；还包括自愿接受遣返的行为是否应被认定为自首，以及量刑承诺在实际操作中的适用性问题。针对这些问题，本文第三章提出了针对性的解决措施，以提高移民遣返措施的有效性和公正性。

第三章是关于完善我国利用移民遣返措施追逃的建议，该部分内容主要从三个方面展开论述：首先，完善完善国内立法与司法制度，其中主要包括完善死刑制度，加快死刑制度的改革，建立将自愿接受遣返行为认定为自首的制度以及完善量刑承诺程序；其次，加强对主要国家遣返程序及证据规则的研究，以便更好地理解和应对不同国家的法律规定，从而有针对性的提交证据；最后，要加强国际司法合作，推动建立双边或者多边合作协议，通过与其他国家的共同努力，提升跨国追逃的效率和成功率。综上所述，通过这些措施的实施改进，期望能够进一步完善移民遣返措施制度，提高利用该措施实现境外追逃的成功率，以便为我国的司法实践和国际合作提供有力的支持。

第四章结语，主要是对利用移民遣返措施进行追逃进行展望，面对错综复杂的国际局势，我国需要不断更新和完善移民遣返相关的法律制度，在解决现有问题的同时加强国际法的适用和解释研究，并且深入研究国内法在移民遣返过程中的作用和影响，为完善相关法律制度提供理论支持，以更好地应对移民遣返和追逃工作中的挑战和问题。

Under the background of the era of deepening the process of global economic integration, exchanges and cooperation among countries are becoming more and more frequent, although China's crackdown on the pursuit of fugitives outside the country has been increasing year by year, there is still the phenomenon of criminals fleeing the country, and in the practice of transnational pursuit of fugitives, extradition is the traditional mode of cooperation, however, with the international community's increasing attention to the issue of human rights safeguards, extradition is subjected to a series of principles of constraints on implementation. However, as the international community attaches increasing importance to the issue of human rights safeguards, the implementation of extradition has been constrained by a series of principles, such as the non-extradition of the death penalty and the non-extradition of political prisoners. While these principles safeguard human rights, they also pose a great challenge to transnational flight pursuits, and the extradition conventions of a number of countries have also made clear provisions for non-extradition cases, making it more difficult to achieve the purpose of pursuing fugitives abroad through extradition. In addition, the extradition conventions between countries have also made clear provisions on non-extradition cases, which are designed to safeguard the judicial sovereignty of individual countries, but also limit the scope of application of extradition. Therefore, the pursuit of fugitives abroad by means of extradition does face many difficulties and challenges. Against this background, we need to study and explore other effective ways and paths of pursuing fugitives abroad other than extradition.

As an important means of pursuing fugitives abroad in China, immigration repatriation measures have special legal attributes. This paper analyses in depth the legal basis of the system of immigration repatriation measures, the conditions of its application and the dilemmas it faces, and gives full consideration to the differences between different countries and social systems. The systematic study of these issues provides valuable reference and inspiration for judicial theory and practice.

The first chapter describes the conceptual definition of immigration repatriation measures and its characteristics. Immigration repatriation measures are the use of Chifan over immigration law to achieve the purpose of pursuing and fleeing suspects of fugitive crimes in China, and are often used in China's cross-border pursuit of corrupt persons in practice. The measure has both its advantages and potential shortcomings. This chapter also describes the current practice of cross-border fugitive repatriation in China, covering the specific ways in which fugitives enter other countries through two different channels, both legal and illegal, and also describes the methods of fugitive repatriation adopted in different ways.

Chapter II analyses the dilemmas faced in implementing immigration repatriation measures. It includes the risk assessment stage before repatriation, in which the issue of the death penalty and the issue of torture are highlighted; it also includes the question of whether the act of voluntarily accepting repatriation should be recognised as a surrender, and the applicability of sentencing undertakings in practice. In response to these issues, Chapter III of this paper proposes targeted solutions to improve the effectiveness and fairness of immigration return measures.

The third chapter is about the recommendations to improve China's use of immigration repatriation measures to pursue fugitives, which is mainly discussed in three aspects: firstly, improving and perfecting the domestic legislation and judicial system, which mainly includes perfecting the death penalty system, accelerating the reform of the death penalty system, recognising voluntary acceptance of repatriation as a system of self-reporting as well as perfecting the procedure of sentencing commitment; secondly, strengthening research on the repatriation procedures of the major countries and the rules of evidence, so as to better understand and respond to the repatriation procedures and rules of evidence. Secondly, strengthening research on the repatriation procedures and rules of evidence of major countries, so as to better understand and respond to the legal provisions of different countries, and thus submit evidence in a targeted manner; and finally, strengthening international judicial cooperation and promoting the establishment of bilateral or multilateral cooperation agreements, so as to enhance the efficiency and success rate of transnational fugitive pursuits through joint efforts with other countries. In summary, through the improvement of the implementation of these measures, it is expected that the system of immigration return measures can be further improved, and the success rate of the use of this measure to achieve the pursuit of fugitives abroad can be increased, in order to provide strong support for China's judicial practice and international cooperation.

Chapter IV Conclusion, mainly on the use of immigration repatriation measures for fugitive pursuits, in the face of the intricate international situation, China needs to constantly update and improve the legal system related to immigration repatriation, strengthen the application and interpretation of international law research while solving the existing problems, and in-depth study of the role and impact of domestic law in the process of immigration repatriation, in order to provide theoretical support for the improvement of the relevant legal system in order to better To provide theoretical support for the improvement of the relevant legal system, so as to better meet the challenges and problems in the repatriation of migrants and the pursuit of fugitives.