Why no extradition treaty with the us

These are two big nations that are not easily pushed around. Neither of them has extradition treaties with the US. One famous case of non-extradition in Russia is that of Edward Snowden who was able to find asylum there. Both Russia and China can be ideal places to reside for both short-term and long-term. They are affordable, and their vast size and diversity mean that you can live any kind of lifestyle that suits your preferences and budget.

Another good non-extradition country to mention is Mongolia, which is sandwiched between China and Russia. Mongolia is an affordable place to lie low for a while and has a rapidly growing economy.

This means you could even come across some good business and investment opportunities while you are there. Brunei is one of the richest countries on the list of nations with no extradition treaty. Brunei is not what you would call a constitutional democracy, with the Sultan personally owning every square inch of the Island and all the wealth on it.

However, if you are able to overlook these drawbacks and abide by the social rules, you may find it to be a decent place to stay for a while. The Gulf States are another set of wealthy countries with no extradition treaties. You might not interested in living according to the type of local culture of these Middle Eastern countries, but places like Dubai are home to large international communities and offer luxurious and comfortable lifestyles.

Jordan and Lebanon are two other Middle Eastern nations with no extradition treaties. The small Balkan country of Montenegro is possibly the most beautiful and unique country on this list. It offers nomads, travellers and fugitives a great lifestyle and good investment opportunities.

Unlike its neighbours, Serbia and Croatia, Montenegro does not have an extradition treaty with the US. It is also not a part of the EU which means it offers a certain degree of privacy. These two fast-growing Eastern European nations might not have been first on your list. However, both offer good investment opportunities in their up-and-coming economies. Ukraine is also a good jurisdiction for offshore banking.

Most importantly, neither of them have extradition treaties with the US. Vietnam and Cambodia are especially popular tourist and business destinations. Here, you can enjoy a high quality and affordable lifestyle, be made to feel very welcome, and take advantage of the many business opportunities available. If your preference is to seek safety on a beautiful island, then look no further than Maldives, Vanuatu, or Indonesia.

All three offer excellent lifestyle and business opportunities, and are ideal safe havens, as they do not have extradition treaties. Vanuatu is a tax-free jurisdiction with an interesting citizenship by investment program, so you could even become a fully-fledged Vanuatuan citizen while you are there. Maldives offers beautiful beaches and crystal waters, along with good investment opportunities in the real estate space.

Indonesia, home to the popular Bali, is a favourite among expats and has a very fast-growing economy. If you are feeling more adventurous and would like to venture over to Africa instead, then Ethiopia, Botswana, and Tunisia are three good prospects which do not have many extradition treaties. Ethiopia and Botswana are two of the strongest economies on the African continent.

Those wishing to enter developing markets can use their escape as an opportunity to explore these promising places. The North African nation of Tunisia is home to another up and coming African economy and is also a beautiful beach destination for those who prefer the Mediterranean climate. As we mentioned previously, there is a difference between being in a place which has no extradition treaty and not being extradited. There are examples of countries which do have extradition treaties but have still refused extradition in the past, such as Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Iceland, and Switzerland.

There are also instances where countries have extradited fugitives even without extradition treaties, such as in the case of Spain and Yemen. There are no guarantees. In some nations, however, there are no extradition treaties in place with the United States.

This means that a person convicted of a crime in one country does not have to be returned to that country to face trial or punishment. Even in nations with treaties in place, geopolitical issues can lead to disputes over extradition. Countries with extradition treaties with the United States but are known for refusing extradition requests are Ecuador , Cuba , Bolivia , Nicaragua , Iceland , Switzerland , Venezuela , and Zimbabwe. On the other hand, some countries without an extradition treaty, such as Yemen in the Middle East, are known for returning fugitives.

Procuration; inciting or assisting a person under 21 years of age or at the time ignorant of the purpose in order that such person shall carry on sexual immorality as a profession abroad or shall be used for such immoral purpose; promoting of sexual immorality by acting as an intermediary repeatedly or for the purpose of gain; profiting from the activities of any person carrying on sexual immorality as a profession.

Kidnapping; child stealing; abduction; false imprisonment. Robbery; assault with intent to rob. Obtaining property, money or valuable securities: by false pretenses or by threat or force, by defrauding any governmental body, the public or any person by deceit, falsehood, use of the mails or other means of communication in connection with schemes intended to deceive or defraud, or by any other fraudulent means. Bribery, including soliciting, offering and accepting.

Receiving or transporting any money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to have been unlawfully obtained.

Fraud by a bailee, banker, agent, factor, trustee, executor, administrator or by a director or officer of any company. An offense against the laws relating to counterfeiting or forgery. False statements made before a court or to a government agency or official, including under United States law perjury and subornation of perjury. An offense against any law relating to the protection of the life or health of persons from: a shortage of drinking water; poisoned, contaminated, unsafe or unwholesome drinking water, substance or products.

Any act done with intent to endanger the safety of any person traveling upon a railway, or in any aircraft or vessel or bus or other means of transportation, or any act which impairs the safe operation of such means of transportation. Piracy; mutiny or revolt on board an aircraft against the authority of the commander of such aircraft; any seizure or exercise of control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence, of an aircraft.

An offense against the laws relating to damage to property. Offenses against the laws relating to importation, exportation or transit of goods, articles, or merchandise. Offenses relating to willful evasion of taxes and duties. Offenses against the laws relating to international transfers of funds. An offense relating to the: a.

Unlawful abuse of official authority which results in grievous bodily injury or deprivation of the life, liberty or property of any person, [or] attempts to commit, conspiracy to commit, or participation in, any of the offenses mentioned in this Article, Art. While many existing U.

Common among these are provisions excluding purely military and political offenses. The military crimes exception usually refers to those offenses like desertion which have no equivalents in civilian criminal law. The exception became advisable, however, with the advent of treaties that make extraditable any misconduct punishable under the laws of both treaty partners.

With the possible exception of selective service cases arising during the Vietnam War period, 32 recourse to the military offense exception appears to have been infrequent and untroubled.

The political offense exception, however, has proven more troublesome. In its traditional form, the exception is expressed in deceptively simple terms. As a general rule, American courts require that a fugitive seeking to avoid extradition "demonstrat[e] that the alleged crimes were committed in the course of and incidental to a violent political disturbance such as a war, revolution or rebellion. Contemporary extradition treaties often seek to avoid misunderstandings over the political offense exception in a number of ways.

Some expressly exclude terrorist offenses or other violent crimes from the definition of political crimes for purposes of the treaty; 36 some explicitly extend the political exception to those whose prosecution is politically or discriminatorily motivated; 37 and some limit the reach of their political exception clauses to conform to their obligations under multinational agreements. A number of nations have abolished or abandoned capital punishment as a sentencing alternative.

Dual criminality addresses the reluctance to extradite a fugitive for conduct that the host nation considers innocent.

Dual criminality exists when the parties to an extradition treaty each recognize a particular form of misconduct as a punishable offense. Historically, extradition treaties have handled dual criminality in one of three ways: 1 they list extraditable offenses and do not otherwise speak to the issue; 2 they list extraditable offenses and contain a separate provision requiring dual criminality; or 3 they identify as extraditable offenses those offenses condemned by the laws of both nations.

Today, "[u]nder most international agreements Although there is a split of authority over whether dual criminality resides in all extradition treaties that do not deny its application, 46 the point is largely academic since it is a common feature of all American extradition treaties.

Thus, dual criminality does not "require that the name by which the crime is described in the two countries shall be same; nor that the scope of the liability shall be coextensive, or, in other respects, the same in the two countries. It is enough if the particular act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions. In the past, some have been unable to find equivalents for attempt, conspiracy, and crimes with prominent federal jurisdictional elements e.

As a general rule, crimes are defined by the laws of the place where they are committed. There have always been exceptions to this general rule under which a nation was understood to have authority to outlaw and punish conduct occurring outside the confines of its own territory.

In the past, U. More than a few call for extradition regardless of where the offense was committed. The right of a country to refuse to extradite one's own nationals is probably the greatest single obstacle to extradition.

The first does not refer to nationals specifically, but agrees to the extradition of all persons. Judicial construction, as well as executive interpretation, of such clauses have consistently held that the word "persons" includes nationals, and therefore refusal to surrender a fugitive because he is a national cannot be justified The second and most common type of treaty provision provides that "neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens or subjects The third type of treaty provision states that "neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens under the stipulations of this convention, but the executive authority of each shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper do so.

These three types of treaty provisions have been joined by a number of variants. A growing number go so far as to declare that "extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.

Depending on the treaty, extradition may also be denied on the basis of a number of procedural considerations. Although the U. Many [states] Under some treaties the applicable law is that of the requested state, 71 in others that of the requesting state; 72 under some treaties extradition is precluded if either state's statute of limitations has run.

When a treaty provides for a time-bar only under the law of the requesting state, or only under the law of the requested state, United States courts have generally held that time-bar of the state not mentioned does not bar extradition. If the treaty contains no reference to the effect of a lapse of time neither state's statute of limitations will be applied. Left unsaid is the fact that some treaties declare in no uncertain terms that the passage of time is no bar to extradition, 75 and others rest the decision with the discretion of the requested state.

In cases governed by U. Perhaps the most common of these deal with the expenses associated with the procedure and representation of the country requesting extradition before the courts of the country of refuge. The distribution of costs is ordinarily governed by a treaty stipulation, reflected in federal statutory provisions, 79 under which the country seeking extradition accepts responsibility for any translation expenses and the costs of transportation after surrender, and the country of refuge assumes responsibility for all other costs.

Contemporary treaties regularly permit a country to surrender documents and other evidence along with an extradited fugitive. An interesting attribute of these clauses is that they permit transfer of the evidence even if the fugitive becomes unavailable for extradition.

This may make some sense in the case of disappearance or flight, but seems a bit curious in the case of death. A somewhat less common clause permits transportation of a fugitive through the territory of either of the parties to a third country without the necessity of following the treaty's formal extradition procedure. The Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States extends to certain cases and controversies. First broached by a district court in the District of Columbia, 86 subsequent courts have rejected the suggestion in large measure under the view that much like the issuance of a search or arrest warrant, the task is compatible with tasks constitutionally assigned to the judiciary.

A foreign country usually begins the extradition process with a request submitted to the State Department 88 sometimes including the documentation required by the treaty.

The Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case obtains a warrant and the fugitive is arrested and brought before the magistrate judge or the district judge. A hearing under 18 U. If the court finds the fugitive to be extraditable, it enters an order of extraditability and certifies the record to the Secretary of State, who decides whether to surrender the fugitive to the requesting government.

In some cases a fugitive may waive the hearing process. OIA notifies the foreign government and arranges for the transfer of the fugitive to the agents appointed by the requesting country to receive him or her. Although the order following the extradition hearing is not appealable by either the fugitive or the government , the fugitive may petition for a writ of habeas corpus as soon as the order is issued. The district court's decision on the writ is subject to appeal, and extradition may be stayed if the court so orders.

Although the United States takes the view that an explicit treaty provision is unnecessary, 93 extradition treaties sometimes expressly authorize requests for provisional arrest of a fugitive prior to delivery of a formal request for extradition. The precise menu for an extradition hearing is dictated by the applicable extradition treaty, but a common checklist for a hearing conducted in this country would include determinations that. Instead, it is essentially a preliminary examination to determine whether a case is made out which will justify the holding of the accused and his surrender to the demanding nation The judicial officer who conducts an extradition hearing thus performs an assignment in line with his or her accustomed task of determining if there is probable cause to hold a defendant to answer for the commission of an offense.

The purpose of the hearing is in part to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the individual committed an offense covered by the extradition treaty.

The rules of criminal procedure and evidence that would apply at trial have no application at the hearing. Due process, however, will bar extradition of informants whom the government promised confidentiality and then provided the evidence necessary to establish probable cause for extradition.

Moreover, extradition will ordinarily be certified without "examining the requesting country's criminal justice system or taking into account the possibility that the extraditee will be mistreated if returned.

If at the conclusion of the extradition hearing, the court concludes there is some obstacle to extradition and refuses to certify the case, "[t]he requesting government's recourse to an unfavorable disposition is to bring a new complaint before a different judge or magistrate, a process it may reiterate apparently endlessly. If the court concludes there is no such obstacle to extradition and certifies to the Secretary of State that the case satisfies the legal requirements for extradition, the fugitive has no right of appeal, but may be entitled to limited review under habeas corpus.

Limitations on review or application of the rule of noninquiry may be modified by treaty or statute. For example, the U. The argument has produced hollow victories at the appellate court level.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the rule of noninquiry posed no obstacle, but went on to hold that FARRA itself barred habeas review of a fugitive's torture claim. If the judge or magistrate certifies the fugitive for extradition, the matter then falls to the discretion of the Secretary of State to determine whether as a matter of policy the fugitive should be released or surrendered to the agents of the country that has requested his or her extradition.

The request for extradition comes from the Department of State whether extradition is sought for trial in federal or state court or for execution of a criminal sentence under federal or state law. The Justice Department's Office of International Affairs must approve requests for extradition of fugitives from federal charges or convictions and may be asked to review requests from state prosecutors before they are considered by the State Department.

The first step is to determine whether the fugitive is extraditable. The Justice Department's checklist for determining extraditability begins with an identification of the country in which the fugitive has taken refuge. Common impediments include citizenship, dual criminality, statutes of limitation, and capital punishment issues. Many treaties permit a country to refuse to extradite its citizens even in the case of dual citizenship.

If the applicable treaty lists extraditable offenses, the crime must be on the list. Where the crime was committed matters; some treaties will permit extradition only if the offense was committed within the geographical confines of the United States.

The speedy trial features of U. Prosecutors may request provisional arrest of a fugitive without waiting for the final preparation of the documentation required for a formal extradition request, if there is a risk of flight and if the treaty permits it.

The Justice Department encourages judicious use of provisional arrest because of the pressures that may attend it. Although treaty requirements vary, the Justice Department suggests that prosecutors supply formal documentation in the form of an original and four copies of.

If the Justice Department approves the application for extradition, the request and documentation are forwarded to the State Department, translated if necessary, and with State Department approval forwarded through diplomatic channels to the country from which extradition is being sought. The treaty issue most likely to arise after extradition and the fugitive's return to this country is whether the fugitive was surrendered subject to any limitations such as those posed by the doctrine of specialty.

The limitation, expressly included in many treaties, is designed to preclude prosecution for different substantive offenses but does not bar prosecution for different or additional counts of the same offense. The doctrine may be of limited advantage to a given defendant because the circuits are divided over whether a defendant has standing to claim its benefits. The existence of an extradition treaty does not preclude the United States acquiring personal jurisdiction over a fugitive by other means, unless the treaty expressly provides otherwise.

Waiver or "simplified" treaty provisions allow a fugitive to consent to extradition without the benefit of an extradition hearing. The removal of aliens under immigration law has traditionally been considered a practice distinct from extradition. Whether by a process similar to deportation or by simple expulsion, the United States has had some success encouraging other countries to surrender fugitives other than their own nationals without requiring recourse to extradition.

Moreover, they frequently require the United States to deposit the alien in a country other than one that seeks his or her extradition. Although less frequently employed by the United States, "irregular rendition" is a familiar alternative to extradition.

Besides receiving persons through irregular rendition, the United States has also rendered persons to other countries over the years, via the Central Intelligence Agency and various law enforcement agencies. During the George W. Bush Administration, there was controversy over the use of renditions by the United States, particularly with regard to the alleged transfer of suspected terrorists to countries known to employ harsh interrogation techniques that may rise to the level of torture.

Little publicly available information from government sources exists regarding the nature and frequency of U. It appears that most, if not all, cases in which the United States has irregularly rendered persons have involved the transfer of noncitizens seized outside the United States, perhaps because persons within the United States and U.

A final alternative when extradition for trial in the United States is not available, is trial within the country of refuge. The alternative exists primarily when a U. Appendix A. Colombia a. Palau c. In , the Supreme Court of Colombia declared that the law ratifying the U. While extraditions from the United States to Colombia continue to be governed by the treaty, extraditions from Colombia to the United States have often been pursuant to a legal authority other than the agreement.

See United States v. Valencia-Trujillo, F. See In re Extradition of Lin, F. Guam ; P. Appendix B. Taiwan b. Croatia 0. Source : CRS based on 18 U. The United States had an extradition treaty with the former Yugoslavia prior to its breakup 32 Stat. Since then, it has recognized at least some of the countries that were once part of Yugoslavia as successor nations; see, for example , Basic v. Steck, F. Ashcroft , F. The United States severed official relations with Taiwan in , when it recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China.

Certain agreements entered prior to the termination of official relations, as well as relations contemplated under multilateral agreements since then, are administered on a nongovernmental basis by the American Institute in Taiwan, which was established pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act P.

Int'l L. In the parlance of international law nations are identified as "states. A current list of countries with which the United States has an extradition treaty is found at Appendix A.

A slightly less up-to-date listing is found at 18 U. A list of countries with which the United States has no extradition treaty in force is found at Appendix B. Until the early s, the United States received and submitted fewer than 50 extradition requests a year; by the mid- s the number had grown to over requests a year; a decade later U.

Even the term extradition did not appear until the late 18 th century. Christopher L. For a more extensive examination of the history of extradition, see Christopher L. Until fairly recently, nations seem to have been happily rid of those who fled rather than face punishment. The Egyptian-Hittite treaty reflects the fact that extradition existed primarily as an exception to the more favored doctrines of asylum and banishment.

Fugitives returned pursuant to the treaty received the benefits of asylum in the form of amnesty:. If one man flee from the land of Egypt, or two, or three, and they come to the great chief of Hatti, the great chief of Hatti shall seize them and shall cause them to be brought to Ramesse-mi-Amun, the great ruler of Egypt. But as for the man who shall be brought to Ramesse-mi-Amun, the great ruler of Egypt, let not his crime be charged against him, let not his house, his wives or his children be destroyed, let him not be killed, let no injury be done to his eyes, to his ears, to his mouth or to his legs II, ch.

A network of bilateral treaties, differing in detail but having considerable similarity in principle and scope, has spelled out these limitations, and in conjunction with state legislation, practice, and judicial decisions has created a body of law with substantial uniformity in major respects. But the network of treaties has not created a principle of customary law requiring extradition, and it is accepted that states are not required to extradite except as obligated to do so by treaty.

From the perspective of one commentator, "The history of extradition can be divided into four periods: 1 ancient times to the seventeenth century—a period revealing an almost exclusive concern for political and religious offenders; 2 the eighteenth century and half of the nineteenth century—a period of treaty-making chiefly concerning military offenders characterizing the condition of Europe during that period; 3 to —a period of collective concern for suppressing common criminality; and 4 post developments which ushered in a greater concern for protecting human rights of persons and revealed an awareness of the need to have international due process of law regulate international relations.

A list of countries with which the United States has bilateral extradition treaties is found at Appendix A. The Convention provides that it "does not abrogate or modify the bilateral or collective treaties, which at the present date are in force between the signatory States.

Nevertheless, if any of said treaties lapse, the present Convention will take effect and become applicable immediately among the respective States…. The United States has bilateral extradition treaties with each of the 11 other parties to the Convention, all but three of which were in effect prior to the Convention's entry into force. Extradition Agreement with the European Union, art.

See, e. Alvarez-Machain, U. United States ex rel. Neidecker, U. Yet, if the United States has seized a person in foreign territory, it appears that it may surrender the person to the territory's sovereign for criminal prosecution, even in the absence of an extradition treaty or authorizing statute.

See Munaf v. Geren, U. Under U. In order for a treaty but not an executive agreement to become the "Law of the Land," the Senate must provide its advice and consent to treaty ratification by a two-thirds majority.

Executive agreements are legally binding agreements entered by the executive branch that are not submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. Law , by [author name scrubbed]. The Constitution calls for the Executive to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. Throughout the history of this Republic, every extradition from the United States has been accomplished under the terms of a valid treaty of extradition. In the instant case, it is undisputed that no treaty exists between the United States and the Tribunal.

This is so even when, the Government insists, and the Court agrees, the Executive has the full ability and right to negotiate such at a treaty. The absence of a treaty is a fatal defect in the Government's request that the Extraditee be surrendered.

Without a treaty, this Court has no jurisdiction to act, and Congress' attempt to effectuate the Agreement in the absence of a treaty is an unconstitutional exercise of power. In re Surrender of Ntakirutimana, No. L, WL S. August 6, Ntakirutimana v. Reno, F. Neidecker], U. Shine, U. Ames, U. For example, extraditions between the United States and Pakistan continue to be governed by the terms of the U.

Extradition Treaty, entered into force June 24, , 47 Stat. Hoxha v. Levi, F. United States, F. Melendez, 92 F. Section of P. II 1 , entered into force March 9, , T. II 1 , entered into force November 21, , T. Treaty Doc. II 1 , entered into force September 24, , 35 U. Here and throughout where an official citation is unavailable for particular treaty, this report uses the Senate Treaty Document citation along with the date upon which the treaty entered into force according the State Department.

The most recent publicly available compendium of U. V 3 , entered into force September 24, , 35 U. No United States extradition treaty negotiated prior to contains an express military offense exception. Even there the political offense exception was thought more hospitable, except in the case of desertion. See generally David A.

Egyptian Extradition Treaty, art. III, entered into force April 22, , 19 Stat. Nezirovic v. Holt, F. United States Attorney General, F. Roche, F. Wilkes, F.