Can the USA extradite you from the country without a treaty?

Many people assume that fleeing to non-extradition countries gives them automatic immunity against extradition to the United States. That’s one of the most dangerous myths in modern international criminal law. The absence of a bilateral treaty with the United States doesn’t create an impenetrable shield against American justice. It simply means that the classic step-by-step treaty mechanism isn’t in place—and the game shifts into the realm of diplomacy, discretion, and leverage.

The U.S. has powerful tools, including diplomatic pressure, intelligence networks, immigration and deportation mechanisms, as well as formal multilateral conventions. For example, U.S. law confirms that “extradition may be granted only pursuant to a treaty” under the classic framework (18 U.S.C. § 3184). However, there are built-in exceptions and workarounds.

But why does this matter? Because if you’re facing a U.S. extradition request—or advising someone who is—understanding how it works without a treaty is crucial. The process becomes unpredictable as it hinges on the requesting country’s desire, the host country’s legal and constitutional rules, the strength of diplomatic relations, and sometimes the perceived political importance of the case. Some countries may refuse to extradite their own citizens, while others may cooperate quietly. What’s not reliable is the idea of guaranteed safety just because there’s no formal treaty.

An established extradition treaty and other bilateral agreements, including various formal extradition treaties, create an obligation for the requested country to consider the request and, if the conditions are met, to extradite the person. This legal obligation doesn’t exist for countries without extradition agreements. However, the U.S extradition law doesn’t prohibit the United States and other European countries from requesting surrender from the host country, nor does it allow them to refuse extradition requests outright.

The U.S extradition act also does not prohibit another sovereign country from agreeing to this extradition, especially when considering the context of the non-extradition countries and potential human rights abuses. However, the absence of an agreement shifts the process from a purely legal plane to the sphere of diplomatic ties, politics, mutual interests, and international cooperation, including extradition cooperation, the legal process, and legal cooperation.

Often, the decision on extradition regarding cross-border crimes is made not so much by the court as by the executive authority (for example, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of Justice) of the host country, which may also consider potential human rights concerns and abuses.

Although U.S. federal laws (for example, 18 U.S.C. § 3184) mainly describe procedures based on international agreements and international extradition treaties, including local immigration laws, especially if there is no treaty with the United States. and treaties, including local immigration laws, the executive branch (represented by the State Department and the Department of Justice) has the authority to conduct international relations. They can initiate a formal extradition request to any state, especially in cases involving criminal prosecution.

Historically, American courts have adhered to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine. This doctrine, although increasingly criticized, essentially states that a court hearing a criminal case should not concern itself with how the defendant ended up in a foreign country or on U.S. territory (even if they were kidnapped). While such methods are officially condemned today, this doctrine underscores the U.S. justice system’s focus on conducting a fair trial once jurisdiction is physically established.

When a formal agreement is absent, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of State use three main alternative methods to return a person.

This is the most powerful and frequently used formal legal basis for extradition without a treaty, which involves specific extradition procedures. That’s why the USA does not have a bilateral treaty with Russia, China, or Vietnam, yet they still interact as extradition countries. It also doesn’t mean that they do not have any general treaties with other countries, or that they do not enter into such treaties occasionally.

Many countries that do not have formal extradition treaties with the USA are participants in major international conventions containing provisions on extradition. These conventions often complement signed extradition treaties and facilitate international legal cooperation for specific types of crimes among non-extradition countries.

This is a key tool in international law enforcement. UNCAC (United Nations Convention Against Corruption) has been ratified by almost all countries in the world, which serves as an official extradition treaty among the countries involved (including the USA, Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia).

Article 44 of UNCAC explicitly allows State Parties to use the Convention as an official extradition treaty and legal basis for extradition if there are no bilateral agreements between the requesting and requested parties involved in extradition proceedings.

How it works:

If the USA accuses a person of a crime falling under the scope of UNCAC (for example, money laundering, bribery, fraud, or embezzlement of public funds), they can send an extradition request to another member country, citing UNCAC as the official extradition treaty and legal basis. The country of residence is obligated to review this request in accordance with its national legislation and potential legal action against the extradition request, and respond to any international arrest warrant issued. This turns the request from an informal appeal into a fully official one, often aided by mutual legal assistance frameworks.

Apart from UNCAC, the USA actively uses other multilateral agreements. These include:

If even multilateral conventions are not applicable, the USA can make a request based on the principle of comity (mutual courtesy) to countries without extradition treaties. This is an informal, entirely diplomatic channel.

The USA, essentially, tells the host country: We don’t have a treaty, but we ask you to extradite this person as a gesture of goodwill and cooperation. We pledge to consider a similar request from you in the future on the same grounds.

The decision here is 100% political. The country of residence is weighing its relations with the USA.

This method is unpredictable but often effective, especially in small countries heavily dependent on the favor of the USA.

This is the fastest, most dangerous, and legally dirty method, often referred to as covert extradition. In this scenario, the USA does not use the word extradition at all and may operate under existing arrest warrants.

The process looks as follows:

This method completely bypasses the judicial system and deprives a person of the right to challenge the issuance. This method is especially common in countries with strong executive power and a less independent judicial system, where domestic prosecution can be influenced.

Often on the internet, people search for lists of such countries without extradition treaties with the USA or that lack formal agreements. As of 2025, this list includes countries such as:

This list is useless and even harmful. Firstly, it constantly changes. Secondly, as shown above, a few countries that are truly non-extradition countries, such as Russia, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia, are participants of UNCAC and UNTOC, which allow extradition for corruption or organized crimes.

Thirdly, countries like the UAE, despite myths, have one of the most effective agreements with the USA and actively extradite fugitives. Some of these nationals may give sanctuary to persons seeking asylum from the American justice, but such actions usually have complicated national security agency (NSA), diplomatic, and legal consequences. As such, relying on an outdated online list is a direct path to arrest.

If you or your assets are in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the USA, or other countries with no extradition agreements, it is extremely important to act proactively to avoid legal consequences. If you have reasons to be concerned about a possible request, it is extremely important to act proactively to avoid legal consequences, including the risk of provisional arrest, which can be influenced by diplomatic relations.

Our team of lawyers specializes in extradition matters, including international criminal law, extradition agreements, and challenging Interpol requests, extradition defense and challenging Interpol requests. We can conduct a confidential analysis of your situation, assess risks in a specific jurisdiction, and develop a defense strategy.

Contact us today for a confidential consultation. Don’t wait until an informal inquiry turns into an arrest at the airport.