“We have been in touch, as we have been for several days now, with a broad range of countries that could serve as either transit spots or final destinations, and what we’ve been communicating is, of course, what we’ve been communicating publicly: that Mr. Snowden has been accused of leaking classified information,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters Tuesday. “He is somebody that we would like to see returned to the United States, of course, and we are hopeful that that will happen.”

So far, their diplomatic strong-arming seems to have yielded some success, though legal experts point out that the United States is on thin ice when it argues that asylum shouldn’t be granted because of the criminal case. Under international law, Snowden is not considered an international criminal, the only category of people to whom asylum can be denied.

Perhaps the biggest point of debate, however, is how to define Snowden – asylum seeker or refugee. Asylum is a political determination, immigration experts said, but refugee status falls under international law and involves many more protections.

If he were determined to be a refugee, most countries would be prohibited from returning him to the United States. But there are many reasons to argue that Snowden doesn’t qualify as a refugee.

Under international law, immigration experts said, Snowden would have to argue successfully that he fits one of five internationally agreed upon criteria for a refugee – that he faces a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.

This is where legal opinions begin to split. Some experts argue that Snowden has a reasonable fear of persecution based on his political beliefs; others consider such fears exaggerated and counter that it’s a clear-cut criminal matter.

International guidelines also draw a distinction between sheltering those who are persecuted and those who are prosecuted – but which is Snowden?

“The refugee is a victim of injustice, not a fugitive from justice,” said Karen Musalo, an asylum law expert at the University of California Hastings law school. “But the line is not always drawn so clearly. An attorney on his behalf might say, ‘Yes, he’s broken some laws, but what the U.S. was doing was inconsistent with international laws.’ It’s a little bit more of a gray area where legitimate arguments can be made on both sides.”

Widney Brown, senior director of international law and policy for Amnesty International, the international rights watchdog that’s decried U.S. attempts to block Snowden’s asylum quest, said the case shows how politicized the asylum process has become since the Cold War era. To her, the chilling part is that the U.S. government is heading off the asylum process even before countries get a chance to independently assess Snowden’s case.

That, she said, is a dangerous precedent for a process that’s designed to offer safe passage for people escaping persecution in their home countries.

“It isn’t on the merits of the claim, but on the politics,” Brown said of the Snowden case. “That’s why we’re seeing countries saying, ‘Don’t bother us.’”