“Hostage diplomacy” loosely describes a phenomenon where states detain foreign nationals under the guise of national law as a means to coerce the foreign policy of another state. The practice violates the human rights of the individual victim and the right of sovereign states to decide their affairs free from any coercive interference. However, “hostage diplomacy” currently seems to be operating in a legal lacuna for two reasons. First, the practice is mischaracterized as if it was a form of “diplomacy,” which distracts stakeholders from recognizing its true nature: an act of state- to-state hostage-taking. Second, the convoluted design of the operation renders such determination difficult: the human pawn may have the function of a hostage; how-ever, he or she is officially a “prisoner” convicted and sentenced according to the domestic legal system of the detaining state. Without a proper framework to “pierce the veil” and qualify the situation as state-to-state hostage-taking, states may have limited legal avenues to sanction the issue without being perceived as, ironically, trespassing on the sovereign matter of the perpetrating state. Legal rights that are based on nationality, such as consular assistance and diplomatic protection, are also perceived to be limited for victims who have dual or multiple nationalities, including that of the perpetrating states, due to the doctrine of non-responsibility. This Article aims to identify the contours of “hostage diplomacy” and search for possible legal avenues in international law to address and sanction the practice.

Continue reading “Hostage Diplomacy”