🤯 Did You Know (click to read)
The famous Kadesh Treaty also included provisions addressing the return of fugitives between Egypt and the Hittite Empire.
Hittite diplomatic texts from the 14th century BCE include treaties with Syrian and Anatolian states such as Ullaza that specified extradition clauses. These agreements required rulers to return political refugees or defectors who fled across borders. The clauses were often detailed, outlining procedures and divine penalties for non-compliance. By codifying extradition, the Hittites reduced the risk of rival courts harboring dissidents. The practice strengthened internal stability by limiting sanctuary options. Written documentation ensured mutual acknowledgment of obligations. Extradition language appears consistently across multiple treaties, reflecting standardized diplomacy. Legal reciprocity became embedded in interstate relations.
💥 Impact (click to read)
Systemically, extradition clauses reduced incentives for rebellion by narrowing escape routes. Diplomatic formalization enhanced predictability between allied states. Treaty enforcement relied on shared religious oaths invoking divine oversight. Institutional trust deepened through contractual clarity. Cross-border legal cooperation predates modern international frameworks by millennia. Administrative literacy underpinned political security. Law extended beyond territorial boundaries.
For individuals seeking asylum, borders offered less protection than expected. Political dissent carried regional consequences. Rulers prioritized stability over sanctuary. Extradition reinforced the reach of authority across landscapes. Even in the Bronze Age, mobility did not guarantee immunity. Law traveled with treaties.
💬 Comments