By virtue of state sovereignty, states exercise authority over all persons and things within their territories. This includes individuals suspected of committing or charged with crimes in foreign states. International law generally imposes no obligation to surrender individuals suspected of or charged with committing crimes in foreign states. Fugitives may only be returned when an agreement exists between the states concerned. As such, states are increasingly ratifying international treaties mandating cooperation to ensure that individuals responsible for certain categories of crimes are brought to justice. It is worth noting that some of these states lack extradition treaties with each other. For example, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) which mandates that they cooperate with each other in ensuring that crimes related to corruption are prosecuted. However, there is no extradition treaty between South Africa and the UAE. In these circumstances, a question arises as to whether they can they rely on the UNCAC to extradite individuals for corruption-related crimes. If they can, what is the nature of the international obligation entrenched under the UNCAC? Overall, what is the standing of international treaty clauses on extradition for states without extradition treaties?

中文翻译：

---

没有国家协议的引渡：国际条约中关于引渡的规定

凭借国家主权，国家对领土内的所有人和事物行使权力。其中包括涉嫌在国外犯罪或被指控犯罪的个人。通常，国际法没有义务移交涉嫌在外国犯罪或被指控犯有个人罪行的个人。只有在有关国家之间达成协议时，才可以退回逃犯。因此，各国越来越多地批准要求合作的国际条约，以确保将对某些类别的犯罪负责的人绳之以法。值得注意的是，这些州中有些彼此缺乏引渡条约。例如，南非和阿拉伯联合酋长国（UAE）是《联合国反腐败公约》（UNCAC）的缔约国，该公约要求它们彼此合作以确保起诉与腐败有关的犯罪。但是，南非与阿联酋之间没有引渡条约。在这种情况下，人们产生了一个问题，即他们是否可以依靠《联合国反腐败公约》引渡与腐败有关的犯罪。如果可以的话，根据《联合国反腐败公约》确立的国际义务的性质是什么？总体而言，关于没有引渡条约的国家，关于引渡的国际条约条款的立场是什么？他们是否可以依靠《联合国反腐败公约》将个人引渡到与腐败有关的犯罪上，这引起了一个问题。如果可以的话，根据《联合国反腐败公约》确立的国际义务的性质是什么？总体而言，关于没有引渡条约的国家，关于引渡的国际条约条款的立场是什么？他们是否可以依靠《联合国反腐败公约》将个人引渡到与腐败有关的犯罪上，这引起了一个问题。如果可以的话，根据《联合国反腐败公约》确立的国际义务的性质是什么？总体而言，关于没有引渡条约的国家，关于引渡的国际条约条款的立场是什么？