A “non-extradition country” is a state that has no extradition treaty with the country seeking you. For an Israeli national or resident that description matters less than most people assume: Israel’s own treaty network is narrower than the American or British one, but the routes that actually return people — INTERPOL notices, UN conventions and immigration removal — work without any treaty at all.
This guide sets out which states have no extradition treaty with Israel, what changes when the request comes from the United States or the United Kingdom instead (the position most dual nationals are in), and what actually stops a surrender in law rather than on a map.
Extradition needs a legal basis — but a bilateral treaty is only one of three
Before any state hands a person over, it needs a legal basis to do so. There are three, and most published “safe country” lists only look at the first:
- A bilateral extradition treaty — the classic instrument, listing extraditable offences and grounds for refusal.
- A multilateral convention that can serve as the treaty basis in its own right. Article 44(5)–(6) of the UN Convention against Corruption and Article 16(4) of the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime allow a state party to treat the convention itself as the legal basis for extradition where no bilateral treaty exists. The 1988 UN drug convention contains a comparable provision. Corruption, fraud, money-laundering and organised-crime allegations therefore travel between states that have never signed a bilateral treaty with each other.
- Domestic law and reciprocity — many states may surrender a person on an ad hoc undertaking of reciprocity, with no treaty at all.
Four principles then apply almost everywhere: dual criminality (the conduct must be an offence in both states), the political offence exception, the specialty rule (trial only for the offences surrendered for), and, in many jurisdictions, a bar or condition on extraditing nationals.
Countries with no extradition treaty with Israel
Israel is party to bilateral extradition treaties with more than 30 states — among them the United States (treaty of 1962, amended by the 2005 protocol), the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, Germany and a range of European states — and it acceded to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition (ETS No. 24), which functions as a treaty basis with the other parties to that convention. Our page on Israel’s extradition treaties sets out the network in detail.
Outside that network sit Russia and most former Soviet states, China, the Gulf states, Iran, Turkey and most of Africa and South-East Asia. Requests from those states reach Israel without a treaty basis — which is precisely why they are frequently pursued through Interpol channels instead, and why an application to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files is often the decisive step rather than the extradition hearing itself.
Two consequences follow for an Israeli national. First, a request from a state outside the network has no treaty basis, so it usually arrives as an INTERPOL notice or a diffusion rather than a formal extradition request — which is why the CCF route is often decisive. Second, where a treaty does exist, the 1999 amendment to the Extradition Law 5714-1954 allows surrender of an Israeli national on the condition that any sentence is served back in Israel.
If the request comes from the United States: states with no US treaty
US extradition relationships are set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3181 and in the State Department’s Treaties in Force. The states below are the ones routinely identified as having no bilateral extradition treaty with the United States. Treaty status changes, so it must be checked for the specific country and date before any decision is taken.
| Region | States with no bilateral US treaty | What happens in practice |
|---|---|---|
| Middle East & Gulf | United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Iran, Syria, Yemen | No bilateral treaty. Several Gulf states cooperate case by case under security agreements |
| Asia | China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, Maldives, Brunei | Some have mutual legal assistance arrangements without extradition |
| Former USSR | Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova | Ukraine and Georgia, by contrast, do have treaties with the US |
| Africa | Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Namibia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda, Cameroon | Deportation and immigration removal are used far more often than extradition |
| Elsewhere | North Korea, Bhutan, Vanuatu, Samoa, most small island states | No diplomatic or treaty framework for surrender |
Two points matter more than the list itself. First, the absence of a treaty does not stop the United States issuing an Interpol Red Notice, which reaches police in all 196 member countries. Second, where the allegation is corruption, fraud or organised crime, the conventions above can supply the missing treaty basis.
If the request comes from the United Kingdom
The UK operates extradition under the Extradition Act 2003, with Part 1 covering EU and designated territories and Part 2 covering treaty partners. The following are commonly listed as having no bilateral arrangement with the UK:
| Region | States with no bilateral UK treaty | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Middle East & Gulf | United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman | Informal cooperation and deportation are used instead |
| Asia | China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Nepal, Cambodia, Laos | China cooperates selectively and on its own terms |
| Former USSR | Russia, Belarus, Central Asian states | Russia has refused UK requests since 2007 |
| Africa | Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Guinea, Mali | Commonwealth membership does not create an extradition obligation by itself |
| Americas | Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador | Treaty text may exist historically but is not applied in practice |
Six reasons “no treaty” is not safety — including for Israeli nationals
- Interpol reaches further than any treaty. A Red Notice or a diffusion circulates to police in 196 member countries. It is not an international arrest warrant — see Interpol’s own description — but border systems flag it, and many states detain first and ask questions afterwards.
- Conventions fill the gap. As set out above, corruption and organised-crime allegations can be extradited on the basis of a UN convention where no bilateral treaty exists.
- Immigration law is faster than extradition. Visa cancellation, refusal of entry and deportation require no treaty, no hearing on the merits and no dual criminality. A person can be removed to the very state that wants them, or to a third state that will extradite.
- Ad hoc surrender happens. States may grant a request on an undertaking of reciprocity, particularly where relations are good and the allegation is not political.
- The consequences follow you into ordinary life. Bank onboarding, compliance screening, residence and citizenship applications and professional licensing all surface Interpol records — long before anyone is arrested.
- Nothing expires. A notice can remain in the system for years and a case can be tried in absentia, so the exposure returns the moment a border is crossed. See our analysis of travelling with a Red Notice.
What actually prevents a surrender
Protection comes from legal grounds, not geography:
- Deleting the underlying notice. Article 3 of Interpol’s Constitution forbids the organisation from acting on matters of a political, military, religious or racial character; its Rules on the Processing of Data impose further limits. The Commission decides an admissible request concerning data within nine months.
- Statutory bars in the requested state. In Israel these sit in the Extradition Law 5714-1954: dual criminality, the political offence exception, the specialty rule, double jeopardy and the passage of time, argued before the District Court with appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Prohibition of return to torture or ill-treatment. Israel is a party to the Convention against Torture, whose Article 3 forbids returning a person to a state where they face a real risk of torture; the constitutional protection of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty operates alongside it. In Council of Europe states the equivalent bar arises under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Our human rights defence page explains how this is argued.
- Refugee protection. Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits return to a state where a person’s life or freedom would be threatened on protected grounds — subject to the exclusion clauses in Article 1F.
- Defects in the request itself. Incomplete documentation, unauthenticated evidence, missing translations and a charge that does not exist in the requested state all defeat requests without any need to reach the merits.
If you are an Israeli national or resident
Israeli law once barred the extradition of nationals outright. Since the 1999 amendment to the Extradition Law 5714-1954 an Israeli national or resident may be extradited, but on a condition: the requesting state must undertake that any sentence will be served in Israel. In practice this changes the shape of the defence rather than removing it — the argument moves to the statutory bars, the quality of the request and the conditions attached to any surrender. The Minister of Justice must certify the request before the court process begins, and that decision is itself open to challenge.
A practical checklist
- Establish what actually exists: a notice, a diffusion, a domestic warrant, or a formal request. They are different problems.
- File an access request with the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files to find out what data is held.
- Map the treaty and convention position between the two states concerned — including the multilateral bases.
- Assess the statutory and human-rights bars on the facts, not on the country’s reputation.
- Deal with travel documents and residence status before any border is crossed.
- Take advice before making any statement to any authority. What is said in the first hours shapes everything that follows.
“Where can I go?” is the wrong question. The right one is “on what legal basis could I be returned, and which of those bases can be removed?” That is the work: deleting the notice, defeating the request, and closing the immigration route. Our extradition defence practice and Red Notice removal service address those three fronts together.