International law has engaged with smuggling since at least the end of the nineteenth century, with treaties attempting to address the clandestine movement of goods and of people across international borders. These have included, amongst others, treaties on the movement of persons, weapons, obscenity, controlled substances, cultural artefacts and wildlife. Given the number of treaties that purport to deal with the clandestine movement of goods and people, and the attention paid to smuggling both internationally and domestically, the extent to which commonalities exist in how smuggling has been addressed in international law, where these commonalities originate from, and what benefit addressing smuggling in common ways may bring states, seem important questions to ask. Examining the development and text of treaties from 1890 to 2012, this work explores where multilateral treaties have addressed smuggling, how this has been done, and the reasons why states have chosen to address smuggling through international law. It argues that there has been a common and consistent approach to tackling smuggling across time and situation, one that has been independent of terminology used. It further argues that this approach to addressing smuggling is one that benefits states in several ways, with smuggling treaties being used to both respond to domestic demands and to attribute responsibility for harm caused to smugglers themselves. In doing so, it suggests that the smuggler has been made to bear a responsibility – and face consequences – far beyond their role in the situation.