Can the USA extradite you from the country without a treaty?
A common misconception that countries without an extradition treaty with the USA provide a safe haven for individuals fleeing American justice is one of the most dangerous myths in international criminal law. This is a fundamental error. The absence of a bilateral treaty does not create an impenetrable shield; it merely means that the extradition process is not automatic or legally binding.
The United States, possessing vast diplomatic and intelligence resources, has developed numerous alternative methods for returning individuals of interest. These methods range from formal legal procedures based on multilateral agreements to informal operations bordering on deportation. Understanding how extradition without a treaty works is crucial for anyone who finds themselves in such a situation. This process is unpredictable and highly dependent on political will and the current relations between the U.S. and the country of residence.
The Myth of the Safe Harbor: What the Absence of an Agreement Really Means
A bilateral extradition treaty is a formalized agreement. It establishes clear rules: which crimes are subject to extradition (the dual criminality principle), what documents are required, what the timeframes are, and most importantly, what the grounds for refusal are (for example, political crimes, statute of limitations). The treaty creates an obligation for the country to consider the request and, if the conditions are met, to extradite the person.
When there is no treaty, this obligation does not exist. However, U.S. extradition law without a treaty (more precisely, its explicit absence) does not prohibit the U.S. from requesting extradition. It also does not prohibit another sovereign country from agreeing to this extradition.
The absence of an agreement shifts the process from a purely legal plane to the sphere of diplomacy, politics, and mutual interests. The decision on extradition 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.
The legal framework of the USA for requests without a treaty
Although U.S. federal laws (for example, 18 U.S.C. § 3184) mainly describe procedures based on treaties, the executive branch (represented by the State Department and the Department of Justice) has the authority to conduct international relations. They can initiate an extradition request to any state.
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 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 trial once jurisdiction is physically established.
How the USA achieves extradition without a treaty
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.
Multilateral conventions (UN)
This is the most powerful and frequently used formal legal basis for extradition without a treaty. The fact that the USA does not have a bilateral treaty with Russia, China, or Vietnam does not mean that they do not have any general treaties.
Many countries that do not have direct agreements with the USA are participants in major international conventions containing provisions on extradition. These conventions function as global extradition treaties for specific types of crimes.
United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
This is a key tool. UNCAC (United Nations Convention Against Corruption) has been ratified by almost all countries in the world (including the USA, Russia, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia).
Article 44 of UNCAC explicitly allows State Parties to use the Convention as a legal basis for extradition if there is no bilateral treaty between the requesting and requested parties.
How it works: If the USA accuses a person of a crime falling under the scope of UNCAC (for example, money laundering, bribery, fraud, embezzlement of public funds), they can send an extradition request to another member country, citing UNCAC as the legal basis. The country of residence is obligated to review this request in accordance with its national legislation. This turns the request from an informal appeal into a fully official one.
Other key conventions
Apart from UNCAC, the USA actively uses other multilateral agreements. These include:
- The UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC): Applies to cases related to organized criminal groups, human trafficking, and the smuggling of migrants.
- Conventions on combating terrorism: A number of agreements oblige countries to cooperate in the extradition of individuals accused of financing terrorism, hijacking airplanes, etc.
- The Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971) and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988): Often used for cases related to large-scale drug trafficking.
The principle of reciprocity
If even multilateral conventions are not applicable, the USA can make a request based on the principle of comity (mutual courtesy).
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.
- Why might the country agree?
- Diplomatic pressure: The desire to maintain good relations with the USA.
- Self-interest: A person may be an undesirable element for the host country (for example, suspected of local criminal activity).
- Why can a country refuse?
- Bad relations: If a country is a geopolitical adversary of the USA (for example, Iran, North Korea).
- Political motives: If a country considers American prosecution politically motivated.
This method is unpredictable but often effective, especially in small countries heavily dependent on the favor of the USA.
Informal issuance (Deportation)
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.
The process looks as follows:
- Notice: The USA (through the FBI, DEA, or Diplomatic Security Service) informs local law enforcement or immigration services that a fugitive wanted under a US warrant is on their territory.
- Visa cancellation: Local authorities find a pretext for canceling the visa or residence permit of this person (for example, providing false information upon entry, threat to national security).
- Immigration arrest: A person is arrested for violating immigration regulations.
- Deportation: Instead of a lengthy extradition process, the person is simply deported. They are put on the first available flight — often a direct flight to the USA. Upon arrival at the American airport, they are immediately arrested by federal marshals.
This method completely bypasses the judicial system and deprives a person of the right to challenge the issuance. It is especially common in countries with strong executive power and a less independent judicial system.
Countries without an extradition treaty with the USA
Often on the internet, people search for lists of countries without an extradition treaty with the USA. As of 2025, this list includes countries such as:
- Russian Federation
- People’s Republic of China (PRC)
- Vietnam
- Indonesia
- Saudi Arabia
- QatarCambodia
- Morocco
- Many countries of Africa and the Middle East.
This list is useless and even harmful. Firstly, it constantly changes. Secondly, as shown above, many of these countries (for example, Russia, China, Vietnam, Indonesia) are participants of UNCAC and UNTOC, which allows 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. Relying on an outdated online list is a direct path to arrest.
Dispute and protection against extradition without a contract
If you are faced with an extradition request without a treaty, the defense strategy differs drastically from that under a treaty. You cannot simply refer to the provisions of the agreement. Your fight shifts to the realm of constitutional and humanitarian law of the host country.
Your local attorney must act quickly to contest the request for informal extradition.
Key defense arguments usually include the following provisions:
- The political nature of persecution; This is a classic argument. It is necessary to prove to the local court or government that the charges from the USA (for example, fraud or tax evasion) are merely a pretext, and the true reason for the persecution is your political activity, beliefs, or origin;
- Violation of human rights; This is the strongest argument. The defense proves that extradition to the USA will lead to a violation of fundamental human rights. Examples: the risk of torture or cruel treatment (referring to conditions in specific American prisons), the risk of an unfair trial, racial or political bias, or the threat of disproportionately harsh punishment (for example, life imprisonment for a non-violent crime);
- The absence of a legal framework; If the request is based on UNCAC, the lawyer may argue that the alleged crime (for example, simple tax evasion) does not fall under the definition of corruption in the Convention;
- Blocking deportation. If the authorities attempt to use the immigration route, the lawyer must immediately file a motion in the local court to suspend the deportation, arguing that the deportation constitutes hidden extradition and violates the individual’s right to access justice and protection from refoulement (expulsion to a country where they face danger).
Do you need an assessment of your international legal status?
If you or your assets are in a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the USA, and you have reasons to be concerned about a possible request, it is extremely important to act proactively.
Our team of lawyers specializes in international criminal law, 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.
