Even more so than the classified information he leaked, Edward Snowden has become known worldwide.  Yet, it seems his whereabouts, at least to those trying to catch him, remain unknown.  For the past month, since revealing U.S. and British government secrets regarding mass surveillance, Snowden has been on the run, with the U.S. attempting to extradite him.

That process in itself has created a whirlwind of controversy.  As recently as July 3rd, even a sniff of Snowden’s presence has grounded Bolivia’s presidential jet, as rumors circulated that he had been granted a ride.  This proved to be untrue, and simultaneously enraged Bolivian officials, not only because several of the U.S.’s and Britain’s allies purportedly turned away the jet for refueling, but because some believed the U.S. deliberately spread the rumor, with Bolivia’s defense minister telling CNN: “[the rumor] was generated by the U.S. government.”

This tension between the two governments, though preexisting, may have been exacerbated by Bolivia’s perceived receptivity to providing Snowden asylum.  Snowden has sought asylum from 21 different countries, and though he has not yet been granted it—even being outright rejected from three countries, Brazil, India, and Poland, and eleven others telling him that he must apply at one of their embassies—his situation brings up interesting questions about international law.

In general, though there are some exceptions, to extradite someone back to the U.S., the U.S. must have a treaty in place with the country the person in question is located.  Though there is an international body, the Office of International Affairs, which advises and reviews these treaties, there is no standardized agreement—each treaty is negotiated between the two nations and is, by and large, individualized to those nations.

Since the U.S. has over 100 of such treaties, it would seem the likelihood of Snowden’s extradition would be fairly high.  There is, however, a question of whether the U.S. has the right to extradite him, with some believing he committed “political” offenses, rather than terroristic ones, and that these “political” crimes are protected under some of the U.S.’s extradition agreements.  Amnesty International, one of the biggest non-governmental human rights groups in the world, has gone as far as saying that the U.S.’s attempts to prevent Snowden’s asylum was a “deplorable”  human rights violation, and that Snowden’s actions were “protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression.”  Amnesty International additionally questions whether Snowden, if he were to be returned to the U.S., would receive a fair trial, given the negative press surrounding him.

Given the rapidly evolving nature of Snowden’s case, though, we may soon find out what will happen to him—whether he will receive asylum, or be returned to the U.S. and stand trial.