HomeThailand uses both bilateral extradition treaties and its domestic extradition legislation when dealing with requests from foreign states. Treaty status matters because an applicable treaty can establish specific requirements for offences, documents, nationality, refusal grounds and surrender.
According to the latest explicit count published by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Thailand had concluded extradition treaties with 16 countries, with the Thailand–Hungary treaty becoming the latest addition in 2019. Thailand’s Extradition Act B.E. 2551 (2008) remains the general domestic framework and applies subject to the terms of an applicable extradition treaty.
However, the absence of a bilateral treaty does not automatically make extradition impossible. Thai law also provides a mechanism for considering requests from non-treaty states where the necessary legal conditions, including reciprocity, are satisfied.
Countries with Extradition Treaties with Thailand
Based on Thai government records concerning the original treaty network, together with the later treaties with India and Hungary, Thailand’s bilateral extradition relationships include the following countries.
| Country | Treaty status |
| Australia | Extradition treaty relationship |
| Bangladesh | Extradition treaty |
| Belgium | Extradition treaty |
| Cambodia | Extradition treaty |
| Canada | Extradition treaty relationship |
| China | Extradition treaty |
| Fiji | Extradition treaty relationship |
| Hungary | Treaty in force since 19 April 2019 |
| India | Treaty in force since 29 June 2015 |
| Indonesia | Extradition treaty |
| Lao PDR | Extradition treaty |
| Malaysia | Extradition treaty relationship |
| Philippines | Extradition treaty |
| Republic of Korea | Treaty in force since 15 February 2001 |
| United Kingdom | Extradition treaty relationship |
| United States | Bilateral extradition treaty |
The legal history of some treaty relationships differs. Several relationships developed through older treaty arrangements, while countries such as India and Hungary concluded newer bilateral treaties directly with Thailand. For an individual case, the specific treaty text currently applicable to the requesting country must always be checked rather than relying only on a country list.
This is also why this page should not describe every treaty as having identical rules. Thresholds, nationality provisions, political-offence rules, specialty provisions and procedural requirements can differ between treaty partners.
What Does an Extradition Treaty Change?
An extradition treaty creates an agreed legal framework between Thailand and the requesting state. However, it does not make surrender automatic.
Thailand’s Extradition Act expressly provides that the Act applies to extradition proceedings insofar as it does not conflict with an applicable treaty. As a result, lawyers and courts need to read the domestic legislation together with the particular treaty governing the request.
Treaties can address matters such as:
- which offences qualify for extradition;
- dual criminality and punishment thresholds;
- required supporting documents;
- provisional arrest;
- extradition of nationals;
- political or military offences;
- previous proceedings;
- limitation periods;
- the rule of specialty;
- surrender after a court decision.
The exact requirements vary. A rule found in one treaty should therefore not be presented as a universal rule for every Thailand extradition case. This can be seen clearly when comparing Thailand’s extradition treaties with the USA, UK and Australia.
Can Thailand Extradite Someone Without a Treaty?
Potentially, yes.
Section 9 of Thailand’s Extradition Act allows the Government of Thailand to consider extradition where no treaty exists if the requesting state gives an undertaking that it would provide comparable extradition cooperation to Thailand. This reflects the principle of reciprocity.
The transmission route also differs. Section 15 provides that an urgent provisional-arrest request from a treaty state goes to the Central Authority. A state without an extradition treaty must transmit that request through diplomatic channels.
Therefore, describing a country as having “no extradition treaty with Thailand” does not mean that a person there can never face an extradition request from that country.
It means that the request does not rely on a bilateral extradition treaty and must instead satisfy the relevant domestic and reciprocity requirements.
Treaty Status Is Not the Same as Mutual Legal Assistance
This distinction is important because extradition treaties and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) serve different purposes.
Extradition concerns the surrender of a person for prosecution or punishment. Mutual legal assistance generally concerns cooperation such as obtaining evidence, executing requests and assisting criminal investigations.
Thailand has MLAT relationships with countries that are not necessarily bilateral extradition treaty partners. For example, official Thai sources list countries including France, Norway, Peru, Poland, Sri Lanka and Ukraine in Thailand’s bilateral mutual-legal-assistance network. Ukraine’s MLAT expressly states that it does not apply to arrest or detention for extradition.
For this reason, these countries should not be added to the extradition treaty list simply because Thailand has another criminal-cooperation agreement with them.
Does Treaty Status Determine Whether Extradition Will Succeed?
No.
Treaty status tells us which legal instrument may govern the request. It does not determine the final outcome.
Under Thailand’s Extradition Act, the authorities and courts may still need to consider the nature of the offence, dual criminality, political or military offence restrictions, previous proceedings and other statutory or treaty requirements.
Likewise, a non-treaty request is not automatically weaker simply because no bilateral treaty exists. It must be assessed under the legal framework that applies to non-treaty cooperation.
Country-Specific Extradition Treaties
The country list on this page provides a general overview. Pair-specific treaty questions should be considered separately because each treaty can contain its own rules.
For example, questions about whether Thailand has an extradition treaty with the United States belong in the dedicated Thailand–United States extradition guide rather than being answered in detail here.
Why Treaty Status Should Be Verified
Treaty networks can change when states sign new agreements, exchange instruments of ratification or bring treaties into force.
For example, Thailand and Hungary signed their extradition treaty before it entered into force on 19 April 2019. Thailand and Vietnam, by contrast, were still publicly discussing negotiations for an extradition treaty in 2025.
Therefore, anyone dealing with an actual extradition request should verify the current treaty status and treaty text rather than relying on an old internet list.
For broader information about the extradition process and legal assistance in an active case, see extradition in Thailand.
Facing extradition treaty questions? The firm’s extradition defence practice covers every stage — from the first provisional arrest to the final Ministerial decision. Early legal intervention provides the most options.
