Non-Extradition Countries List for 2025

Few topics in the world of international freedom are as misunderstood as that of so-called ‘non-extradition countries’.

Often wrapped up in myths of escape and sanctuary, the idea suggests that some places offer guaranteed protection from legal consequences elsewhere.

But while the concept might sound simple, the reality is governed by far more complex rules – rooted in international law and formal extradition treaties or agreements between sovereign states.

Failing to understand this can lead to costly mistakes.

At its core, extradition is the formal process of one country requesting another to surrender an individual for prosecution or punishment.

Whether that request is approved almost always depends on specific legal arrangements – typically bilateral extradition treaties that govern precisely when and how extradition can occur and, just as importantly, when it cannot. 

This means a country isn’t simply ‘non-extradition’ in a general way. Its stance is entirely relative, and its willingness to extradite depends entirely on which country is asking and whether a specific treaty exists between them. 

In some cases, the absence of a treaty may stem from political friction, human rights concerns, a lack of fair legal process, or an objection to practices such as capital punishment. In others, it may reflect diplomatic tensions or simply a lack of historical need for legal cooperation.

Importantly, the global extradition landscape isn’t set in stone. It’s constantly evolving, influenced by international politics, current events, shifting alliances and emerging political priorities or human rights abuses.

Relationships between countries change, new treaties are signed, and old ones might be interpreted differently over time. A place once considered ‘safe’ may now cooperate actively with major powers. 

It’s a complex and constantly changing area, so the Nomad Capitalist team has put together this in-depth guide to explain the reality of extradition in 2025 – what determines whether an extradition request is granted, why treaties matter and how major powers like the US and UK factor into the equation. 

One word of caution: this guide is not legal advice, nor is it a roadmap for evading justice. It’s a factual overview of how extradition works in the world of 2025. 

What are Non-Extradition Countries?

A ‘non-extradition country’ is typically one that doesn’t have a formal legal agreement to surrender individuals to another country requesting them.

Significantly, this status is always relative. For example, country A may have no extradition treaty with country B, making it ‘non-extradition’ from B’s viewpoint – yet could have a fully operational treaty with country C. 

While some countries might still choose to extradite people voluntarily or for other legal reasons, the absence of an enforceable treaty is usually the most important factor.

Why Treaties Don’t Guarantee Extradition?

While treaties are designed to facilitate cooperation between nations, they rarely provide a definite guarantee that a person will be surrendered.

Built into most treaties – often the domestic laws that implement them – are important safeguards and exceptions that can prevent extradition, even if a treaty is in place. 

The Rule of Dual Criminality

A perfect example of that concept is dual criminality. 

Dual criminality dictates that extradition can only be granted if the act the person is accused of constitutes a crime in both the requesting country and the country receiving the request. 

The offence doesn’t need to be defined or named in the same exact way in both jurisdictions, but its core elements or underlying conduct must be criminal in both countries.

For example, if a person is accused of ‘insider trading’ in the US, extradition to a country without specific insider trading laws might still be possible if the actions are covered by broader offences like fraud or market manipulation in that country.

Conversely, extradition would be highly unlikely if the requesting country seeks to prosecute someone for an act that is entirely legal in the requested country.

A common example involves laws on free speech: what constitutes defamation or incitement to hatred in one country may be protected in another. In such cases, the requested country may deny extradition on legal grounds.

Human Rights Exception

Perhaps more than ever, human rights considerations play a critical role in current extradition decisions. 

Extradition can be, and often is, refused if there are any reasons to believe the person would face the death penalty, torture or other forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment in the requesting country. 

In addition, concerns about the fairness of the judicial process in the requesting state can be decisive. If there’s a reasonable chance the person would face a flagrantly unfair trial, this alone can be sufficient grounds to deny an extradition request.

Political Offence Exception

Another vital safeguard built into many extradition laws is the political offence exception. 

This provision was specifically designed to protect individuals from being sent back for purely political reasons – where the prosecution is seen as a response to dissent or opposition rather than actual criminal conduct.

However, defining what constitutes a ‘political offence’ is notoriously difficult and has been a source of much legal debate.

Classic examples of purely political offences include treason, sedition or espionage against the government itself. In the past, this exception was often invoked to protect those involved in rebellions or national struggles for self-determination.

Yet, the boundaries have become much less clear, particularly with the rise of global terrorism and transnational crime.

Many modern extradition treaties now explicitly exclude certain serious acts from the political offence exception, even if they have a political motivation.

Acts of terrorism such as hijacking, hostage-taking and crimes against humanity are now almost universally considered extraditable, regardless of any attached political claims.

The rationale here is that these crimes are so serious that international cooperation is essential and political justification cannot excuse the deliberate harming of innocent people.

Other Important Extradition Exceptions

Beyond these basics, other exceptions exist that can influence whether extradition is granted.

Some nations, for example, uphold a principle of non-extradition of their own nationals. This is often rooted in constitutional protections or long-standing legal traditions, and reflects a preference to prosecute citizens domestically rather than surrender them to foreign jurisdictions. 

Another caveat, the rule of speciality, ensures that once a person is extradited, they cannot be prosecuted for other offences committed prior to their extradition – unless the extraditing country consents. This rule guards against the misuse of extradition for broader legal action than the original charge. 

In addition, many treaties include threshold requirements, meaning extradition is only permitted for offences that meet a certain level of severity. This ‘gravity threshold’ often allows extradition only for offences punishable by at least one year of imprisonment.

10 Non-Extradition Country Examples

The following countries illustrate why extradition can be a complex process and are frequently discussed due to their specific treaty situations with major powers such as the US or the UK, or because of their own national rules regarding surrender.

1. Russia

Russia’s constitution explicitly forbids the extradition of its own citizens. Furthermore, while mutual assistance treaties may exist on paper with nations like the US, there’s no formal extradition treaty. Consequently, extradition requests are often denied or ignored in the current political climate.

2. China

China lacks extradition treaties with key Western nations like the US and the UK. It also maintains a strict policy against extraditing its nationals and frequently cites political or national security grounds for refusing requests.

3. Saudi Arabia

No formal extradition treaty exists between Saudi Arabia and the United States or the United Kingdom. Surrender requests are handled on a case-by-case basis, often influenced by diplomatic relations and political considerations.

4. United Arab Emirates (UAE)

The UAE is a nuanced case. It has treaties with numerous countries, including the UK, and technically, the US since 1999. However, enforcement can be inconsistent, particularly concerning complex financial cases. The process is often described as discretionary and subject to internal review.

5. Vietnam

Vietnam has no formal extradition treaty with the US or the UK, though it has expressed an interest or willingness to establish extradition treaties. Currently, surrender requests are considered on an ad hoc basis.

6. Indonesia

Indonesia does not have an extradition treaty with the United States, though it does engage with the international system and has treaties with neighbours like Singapore. Still, the lack of a specific US agreement complicates potential requests from Washington.

7. Morocco

Though it doesn’t have a formal extradition treaty with the United States, Morocco does have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, which has been in existence since 1993. This treaty provides for bilateral cooperation in criminal matters, including locating of person and transferring of person in custody.

8. Montenegro

Typical of many civil law systems, Montenegro’s constitution generally prohibits the extradition of its own nationals. However, exceptions exist under international obligations. For instance, Montenegro extradited one of its citizens to Serbia in 2011 under a bilateral agreement.

9. Vanuatu

This Pacific Island nation is often mentioned due to its lack of extradition treaties with the US and UK, and its very affordable citizenship by investment programme. Combined, these can add layers of complexity to international legal requests.

10. Namibia

Namibia stands as another example of a country that, as of early 2025, does not have a formal extradition treaty in place with the United States, though it has designated other countries for extradition purposes.

It’s important to bear in mind that the absence of a formal extradition treaty doesn’t guarantee immunity from extradition. Countries may still choose to surrender individuals on a case-by-case basis and international cooperation mechanisms can influence such decisions.

​​The US and Non-Extradition in 2025

The US maintains one of the largest extradition agreement networks in the world, with formal treaties in place with more than 100 countries.

Generally, US policy supports extradition as a tool to ensure that fugitives are brought to justice. Notably, unlike many countries, the US government is typically willing to extradite its own citizens if the terms of the relevant treaty are met.

However, even with this large network and policy outlook, extradition cases involving the US are far from straightforward.

To begin with, significant gaps exist in the US treaty network. High-profile examples of this include China, Russia, Vietnam, North Korea and Indonesia. 

Many Middle Eastern nations, like Saudi Arabia, also operate without specific, formal US extradition treaties, often dealing with requests through diplomatic talks, if they are willing to address them at all. 

Numerous nations across Africa and among the former Soviet states also fall into this category. In addition, countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela have historically denied US requests, citing political tensions, human rights concerns or disputes over treaty interpretation.

Non-Extradition Countries: FAQs

Get the Right Advice

Although there’s a lot of confusion about ‘non-extradition countries’, one thing is clear – this is a complex and ever-evolving area.

This isn’t a fixed label, but a complex interplay of treaties, national laws, diplomacy and political relationships between countries. 

Navigating the world of international law, residency options, citizenship programs, global taxation and asset protection requires more than a handful of online searches.

Misunderstanding how countries cooperate – or don’t – on legal matters like extradition can cause costly mistakes, unexpected legal trouble, or even a loss of personal freedom. 

While this article gives you useful background on how non-extradition works, it’s not legal or financial advice. Everyone’s situation is unique, and this particular legal landscape constantly shifts – never more so than in 2025.

If you’re serious about managing these complexities, professional, tailored advice is essential. At Nomad Capitalist, we specialise in building comprehensive, customised strategies for successful entrepreneurs and investors. 

We help you connect the dots between tax planning, residency, second citizenship and global investments so you can legally go where you’re treated best. 

We focus on ensuring that every part of your international plan fits together smoothly and adheres to the rules. So, if you’re ready for a detailed strategy to increase your freedom and protect your assets, get in touch.