In an analysis to be published by CovertAction, international law expert Alfred de Zayas argues that diplomatic protection remains one of the most underutilized legal tools available to states seeking to counter unilateral sanctions, financial blockades, and other forms of economic coercion.

As unilateral coercive measures—often labeled as sanctions—continue to expand across the global political landscape, de Zayas warns that their humanitarian consequences are becoming increasingly severe. He contends that many of these measures, particularly those imposed by individual states or regional blocs, lack legal legitimacy under international law when not authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

According to de Zayas, diplomatic protection provides governments with a lawful mechanism to defend citizens and corporations harmed by such measures. This tool can include formal diplomatic protests, arbitration, legal proceedings before international courts, and countermeasures. Despite its legal foundation, however, he notes that states rarely employ diplomatic protection systematically, even when their populations suffer significant economic and humanitarian consequences.

The growing use of unilateral coercive measures has raised concerns among international legal experts and human rights advocates. De Zayas highlights reports from United Nations officials documenting the negative impact of sanctions on access to food, medicine, and essential services. These measures, he argues, often disrupt supply chains, weaken economies, and exacerbate poverty, particularly in developing countries.

He also references academic studies examining the broader humanitarian impact of economic restrictions. In some cases, researchers have linked sanctions to increased mortality, reduced healthcare access, and widespread economic instability. Such outcomes, de Zayas suggests, may constitute violations of international human rights obligations.

The legal basis for diplomatic protection is well established in international law. The principle, articulated in early legal doctrines and reinforced by international courts, recognizes the right of states to defend their nationals when harmed by unlawful actions of other states. Over time, this concept has expanded to include not only individuals but also corporations and broader economic interests.

De Zayas points to several landmark rulings by international tribunals that have shaped the doctrine. These cases affirmed that states may pursue legal action on behalf of their citizens and seek compensation for damages caused by internationally wrongful acts. More recent decisions, he notes, demonstrate that diplomatic protection remains relevant in contemporary disputes involving economic and financial measures.

He also emphasizes that the responsibility of states to protect their citizens may be evolving. Traditionally considered discretionary, diplomatic protection could increasingly be viewed as an obligation, particularly in cases involving severe humanitarian consequences. In such circumstances, failure to act may itself raise legal and ethical concerns.

The analysis also underscores the potential role of international courts in addressing unilateral sanctions. De Zayas argues that affected states could challenge such measures before judicial bodies, relying on existing legal precedents and human rights treaties. These mechanisms, he suggests, provide a structured framework for resolving disputes and reinforcing international legal norms.

Furthermore, de Zayas calls for greater cooperation among countries affected by unilateral coercive measures. He argues that coordinated diplomatic and legal action could strengthen efforts to challenge sanctions and reduce their humanitarian impact. Such cooperation, he says, may also help reaffirm principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in international relations.

As geopolitical tensions continue to shape global economic policies, the debate over unilateral sanctions is likely to intensify. De Zayas’s analysis highlights diplomatic protection as a practical legal avenue that states could employ more actively.

While often overlooked, diplomatic protection may offer governments a pathway to defend their citizens, challenge economic coercion, and reinforce international law. In an era marked by increasing economic pressure and geopolitical competition, de Zayas suggests that this longstanding legal doctrine could regain renewed relevance in global diplomacy.