\u201cHostage diplomacy\u201d 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, \u201chostage diplomacy\u201d currently seems to be operating in a legal lacuna for two reasons. First, the practice is mischaracterized as if it was a form of \u201cdiplomacy,\u201d 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 \u201cprisoner\u201d convicted and sentenced according to the domestic legal system of the detaining state. Without a proper framework to \u201cpierce the veil\u201d 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 \u201chostage diplomacy\u201d and search for possible legal avenues in international law to address and sanction the practice.<\/p>\n