Countries without extradition treaties in 2026

As we approach 2026, the legal landscape is evolving. Today, countries without extradition are a complex system of diplomatic balances, where the absence of a formal agreement does not always guarantee inviolability. Understanding the mechanisms of protection requires an analysis not only of the legislative framework but also of the actual practice of interaction between intelligence agencies. States that do not extradite to the USA or the United Kingdom often act based on their own political motives or principles of sovereignty, refusing cooperation even in the presence of serious accusations.

To ensure legal safety, it is essential to understand the nuances of international law, to research not only the existence of treaties but also a country’s history of international legal cooperation. Understanding this will help you find the best non extradition countries that provide real legal security.

This year, the list of safe havens has been adjusted due to new bilateral agreements and increased pressure from FATF. Nevertheless, countries without extradition treaties remain a key destination for the relocation of individuals fearing unjust prosecution.

The absence of a bilateral treaty means that the requesting state has no direct legal basis to demand the arrest and extradition of the suspect. However, international law allows the use of principles of reciprocity or UN conventions (for example, against corruption or organized crime) as alternative tools. Therefore, when choosing a jurisdiction, it is necessary to assess not only the presence of a signature on paper but also the history of actual extradition cases over the past five years.

The legal term country without extradition is not entirely correct, as absolute havens do not exist. This concept usually refers to a state that does not have binding international agreements with a specific country (for example, with the USA or Canada) on the mutual extradition of criminals.

In such jurisdictions, the process of transferring a suspect becomes solely an act of goodwill rather than a legal obligation. The authorities of the receiving state independently decide whether the request aligns with their national interests. Often, countries that do not extradite to the USA use the absence of a treaty as a tool for political bargaining or demonstrating the independence of their judicial system.

Extradition is a formalized procedure for transferring a person accused or convicted of committing a crime from one jurisdiction to another for the administration of justice. This mechanism is based on strict procedural norms and requires compliance with human rights.

The procedure is rarely lightning-fast and usually goes through a complex multi-stage filter.

The initiating state sends an official request, supported by evidence and an arrest warrant;

The host party detains the subject and conducts a preliminary document check;

The local court examines the validity of the request, verifying compliance with the principle of double criminality (the act must be punishable in both countries);

The Ministry of Justice or the head of state makes the final political decision on extradition or refusal.

Many mistakenly believe that the absence of an extradition treaty guarantees complete safety. This is a dangerous misconception. Countries without an extradition treaty often use alternative mechanisms, such as deportation, to remove individuals deemed a threat to national security or public order.

Extradition focuses on criminal prosecution and requires substantial evidence of guilt. Deportation, on the other hand, is an administrative procedure related to violations of immigration regulations (expired visa, canceled passport). Administrative expulsion happens even faster and often leaves no time for appeal. For intelligence agencies, it is easier to cancel a suspect’s passport, making them an illegal immigrant, and send them back to their home country on a regular flight than to initiate a years-long extradition process.

The global landscape of jurisdictions can be divided into several categories depending on their willingness to cooperate with foreign law enforcement agencies.

This group includes states that fundamentally did not sign agreements with most Western countries or froze their implementation. These include North Korea, Iran, Syria. Inclusion in this list is often due to isolationism or ideological opposition. Non-extradition countries of this type provide high protection from Western requests but may pose risks to personal safety and quality of life.

List of non-extradition countries:

The main legal aspects of extradition contracts

There are also states that practice partial extradition. Such countries agree to extradite another person for criminal prosecution or execution, but with certain limitations. Not all extradition requests are granted, and extradition is granted only within the established conditions.

Examples of countries with partial extradition:

This includes jurisdictions that cooperate selectively, based on the principle of “case-by-case” (individual consideration). For example, countries without an extradition treaty with Canada or the USA may extradite a criminal if it concerns terrorism or drug trafficking but will refuse in cases of economic crimes or politically motivated cases.

U.S. extradition rules are governed by federal law (18 U.S.C. §3181-§3196) and numerous bilateral agreements with more than 100 countries. U.S. law allows the extradition of its own citizens if it is provided for by the treaty. Exceptions may be made if there are humanitarian reasons or a risk of human rights abuses.

If the requesting country provides for the death penalty, the United States can demand guarantees that it will not be applied. Refusal of extradition for political crimes. The U.S. routinely refuses extradition for political crimes, except terrorism and crimes against humanity.

The procedure for extradition to the United States is as follows:

The main countries without extradition treaties with the US are:

While none of these countries involved above have official extradition treaties with the US, exceptions can be made through diplomatic relations in extenuating circumstances.

Armenia
Despite the rapprochement with the West in recent years, as of 2026, there is no ratified mutual extradition treaty between Yerevan and Washington. Armenia pursues an independent judicial policy and requires substantial evidence to satisfy any foreign requests. However, it is worth considering the growing diplomatic influence of the United States in the region.

China
The PRC does not have an extradition treaty with the United States. Political tension and a lack of trust in each other’s judicial systems make extradition practically impossible. China often acts as a refuge for individuals persecuted for political reasons or within the framework of trade wars but requires strict compliance with local laws.

Saudi Arabia
The kingdom relies on Islamic law (Sharia) and does not have an extradition treaty with the USA. Saudi authorities are extremely reluctant to extradite suspects to non-Muslim countries, especially if the act is not considered a crime under Sharia law. This makes the country one of the most closed jurisdictions for American justice.

United Arab Emirates
The UAE does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the USA, although cooperation is carried out within the framework of combating terrorism and money laundering. The Emirates is a popular destination for expats; however, the best countries without extradition do not always guarantee safety in the presence of an Interpol Red Notice. Dubai authorities may detain a suspect, but the extradition process without a treaty is extremely complicated and prolonged. Even without a formal agreement, the collaboration remains strong, and extraditions occur regularly.

Vanuatu
This island nation in the Pacific Ocean does not have an agreement with the USA. Vanuatu attracts investors with its citizenship program, however, pressure from the EU and the USA on the “golden passports” program is increasing. Nevertheless, there are no legal grounds for automatic issuance to the States here.

Indonesia
Indonesia, the largest economy in Southeast Asia, has not signed an extradition treaty with Washington. Local legislation is complex, and bureaucratic procedures make extradition a lengthy and unpredictable process. However, close cooperation between intelligence agencies in the field of security remains.

Thailand
It is important to note a nuance: Thailand has an active extradition treaty with the USA (signed in 1983). However, in practice, the procedure often drags on for years, and Thai courts may refuse extradition on formal grounds. Many mistakenly include Thailand in the lists of countries that do not extradite to the USA due to the complexity of the process, but legally, the risk of extradition here exists and is quite real.

Each country at the level of national legislation can establish its own rules for regulating the extradition procedure. Certain countries like Germany and Brazil also prohibit the extradition of their citizens. Whereas the United States and Great Britain allow this under certain conditions. Many States refuse to extradite individuals for political offenses, but the definition of such an offense may vary.

Differences between the continental and Anglo-Saxon legal systems also affect extradition proceedings. Participation in regional agreements simplifies and unifies the extradition process between the participating countries.

Next, we will consider the features of the extradition procedure in several leading countries.

Extradition proceedings in the UK are governed by the Extradition Act 2003. The Act divides countries into Part 1 (countries with a simplified procedure, formerly EU states) and Part 2 (the rest of the countries with which the UK has extradition treaties).

The law allows for the extradition of its own citizens. Assurances regarding conditions of detention and the judicial process may be requested.

After the UK left the EU, new cooperation agreements in the field of extradition were concluded with European countries. The trade and cooperation agreement between the EU and the UK includes extradition provisions replacing the European Arrest Warrant.

Extradition procedure in the UK:

The extradition process in the United Kingdom is a complex, multi-stage procedure that begins with the issuance of an arrest warrant. For states classified under “Part 1” (primarily European countries), a simplified arrest warrant mechanism applies. After a person is detained on the basis of this warrant, the law requires that a preliminary hearing be conducted within a short timeframe — within 48 hours of arrest.

The key authority handling such cases is the Westminster Magistrates’ Court. During the judicial stage, the judge carefully assesses the evidence presented and verifies compliance with procedural requirements. The court’s primary task is to determine whether the legal basis for extradition is valid and to examine whether any statutory bars to extradition apply (for example, risks of human rights violations).

Following the review, the judge issues a decision regarding the permissibility of extradition. Here the procedure differs depending on the requesting state: if the request is made by a “Part 2” country (all non-European states), then after the court approves the extradition, the case is forwarded for final approval to the UK Home Secretary.

UK legislation provides a robust system of safeguards for the individual concerned. The person has the right to appeal the decision to the High Court. If the appeal is unsuccessful and all other legal remedies are exhausted, the defence (or prosecution) may petition the UK Supreme Court, whose decision is final.

The main countries without an extradition agreement with the UK are:

These countries have either never entered into an agreement with the UK or have political or legal restrictions that prevent extradition.

The rules governing the extradition of persons are governed by the Extradition Act 1988. Australia also has bilateral agreements and is a party to multilateral conventions. The court does not assess the guilt or innocence of a person, but only checks the sufficiency of evidence for possible trial in the requesting country (prima facie principle). The Attorney-General may refuse extradition on humanitarian grounds, including a person’s health or family circumstances.

Countries that do not have an extradition agreement with Australia:

The Extradition Act, 1962 is the principal piece of legislation governing the extradition process in India. India has extradition treaties and agreements with more than 40 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and others. India was extraditing its nationals on the condition that all human rights were respected.

Countries that do not have an extradition agreement with India:

If you need legal advice on extradition issues, our international law lawyers are ready to provide professional assistance.

Canada as members of the Commonwealth, have simplified extradition mechanisms between themselves and with the United Kingdom. However, their influence weakens outside the Anglosphere.

Countries without an extradition treaty with Canada:

Countries not extraditing to Canada

The Canadian legal system is known for its liberalism, but it also faces barriers. Which countries do not extradite to Canada? First and foremost, these are states without diplomatic relations or with fundamentally different legal systems: North Korea, Iran, Syria. In addition, many popular offshore jurisdictions are in no hurry to cooperate with Ottawa on tax crimes unless they fall under dual criminality.

Relying solely on the absence of a treaty is a high-risk strategy. Even the best countries without extradition are members of Interpol.

Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant, but practically performs a similar function, contributing to the rapid informing of law enforcement agencies about wanted persons.

In countries where there is no agreement, the police can still arrest a person based on a “Red Notice.” Two scenarios are then possible:

Individuals on the basis of a Red Notice if it is contrary to their legislation. After detention, a long period may pass before the actual extradition through judicial procedures.

Unofficial cooperation of intelligence services also plays a role. In high-profile cases involving national security or large-scale financial embezzlement, states may come to an agreement behind the scenes, bypassing formal procedures.

Extradition issues involve complex legal systems and international treaties, often carrying serious consequences for individuals’ lives and freedoms. If you or your loved ones face challenges related to extradition, especially in non extradition countries or countries with no extradition treaty with the US, professional legal assistance is essential.

Our experienced team of attorneys specializes in defending clients’ rights in extradition matters. We provide comprehensive support at every stage—from assessing risks to court representation. Our specialists develop effective defense strategies tailored to your case and advocate for your interests in legal proceedings.

Don’t delay addressing critical legal challenges. Contact our lawyers today for trusted, professional help to protect your rights against extradition risks.