HomeWhich countries are not members of Interpol?
The global security architecture strives for absolute universality, yet there are still blank spots on the world map. Interpol, which today unites 196 countries, represents the largest law enforcement structure on the planet. Nevertheless, membership in the organization is not automatic for all subjects of international law. The absence of a state in Lyon’s databases creates specific legal collisions and complicates the transnational prosecution of criminals.
Understanding which jurisdictions remain outside the I-24/7 system (the global police secure communication network) is critically important for lawyers, international business structures, and security analysts. Let’s analyze in detail who is not part of the club, why this has happened, and whether it guarantees immunity from prosecution.
Current membership status
Contrary to outdated lists widespread on the internet, the number of outsider countries is rapidly decreasing. Now the actual list of states without a National Central Bureau (NCB) is limited to just a few. The reasons for isolation vary from severe geopolitical conflicts to a banal lack of administrative resources or absence of international recognition.
The absence of a flag at Interpol headquarters means not only the inability to upload data about criminals into the shared system. It blocks operational access to databases of stolen passports, hijacked cars, and biometric data, leaving the national police blind in the face of cross-border threats.
List of countries and territories outside the jurisdiction of Interpol
The situation should be viewed through the prism of the subject’s status in the UN and its diplomatic recognition. Most gaps on the Interpol map are connected with unrecognized states, whose applications are blocked by active members based on the organization’s Charter. However, there are also full-fledged UN members ignoring global police cooperation.
Below is a verified list of jurisdictions that are not members of Interpol at the current moment, divided by legal status:
- North Korea (DPRK). The regime’s isolation and specific foreign policy make Pyongyang’s integration into Western police structures impossible. Interaction occurs exclusively through diplomatic channels or via China;
- Tuvalu. A Pacific state, being a member of the UN, has not applied or completed the accession procedure, likely for financial or administrative reasons;
- The Holy See (Vatican). The city-state is not a member but maintains close contacts through Italian law enforcement agencies and holds observer status;
- Taiwan (Republic of China). The island has a strong law enforcement system but is excluded from the organization due to the “One China” policy promoted by Beijing. Taiwan is forced to interact with the world through unofficial channels;
- Kosovo. The republic has repeatedly applied for membership (the last notable attempt was in 2018), but did not gather the required number of votes in the General Assembly due to active opposition from Serbia, Russia, and a number of other countries;
- Western Sahara (SADR). A partially recognized state, de facto controlled by Morocco, does not have status in the organization;
- Unrecognized entities in the post-Soviet space. Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Northern Cyprus cannot claim membership, as Interpol strictly adheres to the rules of sovereignty recognized by the UN.
Political barriers and the Charter of the organization
A fundamental obstacle to expanding the list is Article 3 of the Interpol Charter. It strictly prohibits the organization from interfering in activities of a political, military, religious, or racial nature. However, in practice, it is politics that determines the boundaries of membership.
The most illustrative case is that of Taiwan. Taipei held the status of a member until 1984, when the seat was transferred to the PRC. Since then, Taiwanese police have been disconnected from the I-24/7 system. This creates a paradoxical situation: an island with a developed economy and high human traffic cannot promptly check passports against the SLTD (Stolen and Lost Travel Documents) database. Criminals exploit this gap, understanding that a Red Notice will not immediately appear on a border officer’s terminal at Taoyuan Airport. Taiwan is forced to request information through third countries, which critically slows down response times.
A similar situation is developing with Kosovo. Pristina argues the necessity of joining by the fight against organized crime in the Balkans. Opponents, however, see this as a step toward legitimizing sovereignty. As a result, the fight against crime becomes a hostage to diplomatic battles, and the region remains a “gray zone” for international exchange of operational data.
Does the absence of membership save from extradition?
There is a dangerous misconception that countries outside of Interpol automatically become havens for fugitive criminals. The logic is simple: no membership — no Red Notice — no arrest. The reality is much more complex and harsher.
Interpol does not carry out extradition. It is an information hub, not a judicial body. The extradition of a criminal is regulated by bilateral agreements between states. Even if a country is not part of Interpol (for example, North Korea or Tuvalu), it can extradite a person based on a direct request from another state if there is an appropriate agreement or political will between them.
Moreover, the absence of a country in Interpol does not mean complete invisibility. Major powers (USA, China, Russia, EU countries) use alternative channels of intelligence and diplomatic pressure. If a fugitive is located in the territory of unrecognized Northern Cyprus, Turkey may carry out detention and deportation at the request of a third party. Taiwan, despite its isolation, actively cooperates with the USA and Japan, concluding agreements on mutual legal assistance.
Operational consequences for businesses and individuals
For international business and individuals, being in a jurisdiction not covered by the Interpol network carries specific risks rather than advantages.
Firstly, legal uncertainty. In member countries, standardized protocols for processing requests are in effect (albeit with violations). In “gray zones,” the detention procedure can be arbitrary, without adherence to basic human rights and the possibility of appeal through the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF).
Secondly, financial isolation. Banking compliance considers transactions from such regions as high-risk. This complicates conducting legal business and transferring assets.
Thirdly, the lack of protection. If a citizen becomes a victim of a crime in a territory not connected to Interpol’s databases, the chances of an international search for the criminal or the return of stolen assets approach zero. The local police simply do not have the tools to send a request to 196 countries worldwide with one click.
Alternative mechanisms of cooperation
The world does not tolerate a vacuum. Where Lyon’s mechanisms do not work, regional alliances come into play. Europol, ASEANAPOL, Ameripol — these structures partially compensate for the gaps.
For rogue states or unrecognized territories, the only tool remains “manual control.” Requests are transmitted through consulates, security attachés, or via personal contacts of intelligence agency leaders. This process is slow, bureaucratic, and often depends on the current political situation rather than the severity of the committed crime.
Need Support from INTERPOL Lawyers
The absence of a country in Interpol’s lists in 2026 is more of an anomaly than a protection strategy. The circle is tightening, and even the most isolated jurisdictions are forced to seek formats of interaction with the global security system. For individuals pursued by the law, these territories represent a trap rather than a refuge: the lack of transparent procedures makes them vulnerable to political bargaining and extralegal methods of influence.
Understanding the nuances of international search requires deep expertise. A mistaken bet on a “country without Interpol” can cost freedom.
Faced with unlawful persecution or the threat of extradition? Do not rely on chance and outdated information. International law requires meticulous precision. Seek professional consultation from lawyers specializing in Interpol and extradition defense to develop an effective strategy for protecting your rights and reputation.
