The Cuba Embargo Under International Law: Is the US Policy Lawful?

Introduction

The Cuba embargo is not automatically unlawful under international law, but neither is every restriction imposed by the United States legally justified. States generally retain considerable authority to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction. That authority becomes more controversial when domestic legislation seeks to influence independent economic activity abroad, penalize foreign companies, or restrict transactions between third countries and Cuba. The legality of the American policy depends on the particular measure, its jurisdictional reach, and the international obligations applicable to it.

The embargo has remained a defining feature of US-Cuban relations since President John F. Kennedy imposed comprehensive trade restrictions in February 1962. Congress subsequently strengthened the policy through legislation, particularly the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which extended its consequences to certain foreign businesses dealing with property confiscated by the Cuban government. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly called for the restrictions to end, while the European Union has challenged their extraterritorial application.

The dispute remains legally significant in 2026. American executive orders and regulatory amendments have altered restrictions affecting foreign economic actors, and two US Supreme Court decisions have clarified important provisions of the Helms-Burton Act. On October 28, the General Assembly again called for an end to the embargo, although support for the resolution declined substantially. These developments expose a persistent distinction: American legislation may authorize sanctions under US law without conclusively establishing their compatibility with international law.

1. What Does the Cuba Embargo Actually Prohibit?

The US embargo against Cuba is a system of economic, commercial, and financial restrictions administered through legislation, executive orders, and federal regulations. Its scope extends beyond a conventional prohibition on importing Cuban products. American persons and businesses generally face restrictions on commercial dealings, investment, financial transfers, and transactions involving Cuban property or designated entities, unless an applicable authorization permits the activity.

The embargo also affects international shipping and certain companies operating outside American territory. Restrictions concerning foreign subsidiaries, vessels trading with Cuba, and commercial use of confiscated property can influence transactions that have no immediate connection with trade between the United States and Cuba. These measures account for much of the disagreement over economic sanctions under international law. A state's authority to restrict its own market is more readily established than an entitlement to regulate commerce among independent foreign actors.

Cuba frequently describes the embargo as el bloqueo, or the blockade. That terminology expresses the Cuban government's assessment of the restrictions' cumulative economic effects. In the technical law of naval warfare, however, a blockade involves measures preventing access to or departure from an enemy coastline. The American embargo is primarily a statutory and regulatory sanctions system, rather than a conventional belligerent naval blockade. This legal distinction does not diminish its economic consequences, but it prevents the rules governing wartime blockades from being applied without establishing their conditions of application.

1.1 Trade Restrictions, Financial Controls, and Exceptions

The Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR Part 515, remain central to the administration of the embargo. Originally introduced in 1963 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, they restrict transactions involving Cuba or Cuban nationals by persons subject to US jurisdiction. The regulations address blocked property, financial transfers, commercial dealings, travel-related transactions, and the circumstances in which American persons may participate in authorized activities.

Export controls administered by the Department of Commerce operate alongside Treasury restrictions. Although most exports and reexports of items subject to US export-control jurisdiction require authorization, the relevant rules permit certain transactions involving agricultural commodities, medicines, medical devices, telecommunications, and other specified goods. The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 establishes additional conditions governing particular agricultural and medical exports. These exceptions are legally significant because the embargo does not prohibit every transaction involving Cuba.

The regulatory framework became more restrictive on September 30, 2026, when the Treasury Department amended Part 515. The amendments introduced restrictions on certain indirect financial transactions involving entities on the Cuba Restricted List and removed the general authorization for specified U-turn transactions. Previously, qualifying transfers involving Cuba could be processed by US financial institutions when both the originator and beneficiary were outside US jurisdiction. Under the amended rules, those institutions are generally authorized to reject, rather than process, such transfers.

The September amendments also removed the general authorization permitting US banking institutions to maintain certain accounts solely in the names of Cuban independent private-sector entrepreneurs. They eliminated authorizations for group people-to-people educational travel and attendance at or organization of professional meetings and conferences, subject to applicable exceptions and transitional arrangements. These changes affected financial and travel activities that had previously been permitted under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (US Treasury Department, 2026).

On the same date, the Treasury Department introduced the separate Cuba Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 516, implementing Executive Order 14404. This framework provides for restrictions involving designated foreign persons and specified transactions. It operates alongside the longstanding embargo rather than replacing Part 515. General License 1, issued in May 2026, preserves transactions otherwise authorized or exempt under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations against prohibitions imposed by Executive Order 14404, subject to the license's terms.

Licensing does not necessarily make an authorized transaction commercially straightforward. Exporters and financial institutions may face restrictions concerning counterparties, payment arrangements, and participation by entities subject to separate sanctions. Foreign banks may also decline lawful transactions because they consider the regulatory or commercial exposure excessive. Such overcompliance can extend the embargo's practical economic effects beyond the transactions expressly prohibited by American law.

2. Is the US Embargo Against Cuba Lawful?

The principal international legal question is whether specific American restrictions exceed the freedom that international law ordinarily permits states to exercise over their economic relationships. There is no general rule requiring states to maintain unrestricted commercial relations with every other country. A government may normally decide whether to import particular goods, grant discretionary economic benefits, or permit certain transactions within its jurisdiction, provided it respects applicable legal obligations.

International law nevertheless places limits on economic statecraft. Restrictions may engage treaty commitments, obligations concerning non-intervention, principles governing jurisdiction, and the law of state responsibility. A measure that is lawful as an exercise of domestic economic discretion may become problematic when its application breaches an independent treaty obligation or unlawfully interferes with another state's sovereign authority.

The assessment also depends on the legal justification advanced. Retorsion refers to unfriendly conduct that remains lawful without requiring a prior internationally wrongful act. Countermeasures occupy a different category: they may justify conduct that would otherwise breach an international obligation, but only under restrictive conditions. Treating all sanctions as permissible retaliation, or all economic pressure as prohibited intervention, would disregard these distinctions.

2.1 Sovereign Discretion and the Principle of Non-Intervention

The principle of non-intervention protects a state's freedom to make sovereign decisions without prohibited coercion by another state. It is recognized in customary international law and is closely related to sovereign equality and political independence. Its scope is narrower than a general prohibition against foreign influence. Diplomatic criticism, commercial restrictions, and attempts to persuade another government do not necessarily constitute unlawful intervention.

In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice identified coercion as the defining element of prohibited intervention in matters that states are entitled to determine freely. The Court considered American economic measures against Nicaragua but did not find that those measures, on the facts before it, breached the customary principle of non-intervention (International Court of Justice, 1986, paras. 202–205, 245).

The Court's treatment of customary international law must be distinguished from its findings concerning the separate bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between Nicaragua and the United States. The judgment did not establish that all forms of economic coercion are permissible. Nor did it supply a universal test under which the severity of economic pressure alone determines whether intervention is unlawful.

The relevance of that distinction to Cuba is substantial. American legislation pursues objectives extending beyond the regulation of bilateral commerce, including changes in Cuba's political institutions and governmental conduct. Nevertheless, an intention to influence political decisions does not independently establish prohibited coercion. The principle of non-intervention in international law requires examination of the protected sovereign choice, the means employed, and the applicable legal threshold.

Regional treaty law provides a more explicit formulation concerning economic coercion. Article 19 of the Charter of the Organization of American States prohibits intervention in another state's internal or external affairs, while Article 20 prohibits coercive economic or political measures intended to force another state's sovereign will and obtain advantages from it. These are treaty provisions within the inter-American legal system, rather than automatic statements of the universal customary rule.

Cuba remains formally listed among the member states of the Organization of American States. The 1962 decision excluding its government from participation ceased to have effect under General Assembly Resolution AG/RES. 2438 of June 3, 2009, although ordinary participation was not subsequently restored through the dialogue process contemplated by that resolution. Cuba's institutional position does not remove the relevance of the Charter's provisions, but the precise application of regional obligations must be assessed within their treaty framework.

2.2 Expropriation Claims and the Law of Countermeasures

One longstanding American justification for economic pressure concerns the nationalization of US-owned property after the Cuban Revolution. The confiscation of foreign-owned assets without agreed compensation generated claims under international law and contributed directly to the deterioration of relations between Washington and Havana. The existence of unresolved compensation claims provides a relevant legal context, but it does not automatically validate every restriction subsequently imposed against Cuba.

Countermeasures are governed by requirements developed in customary international law and reflected in the International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Article 22 addresses the circumstances in which an otherwise internationally wrongful act may be justified as a countermeasure. Articles 49–53 address its purpose, limits, proportionality, procedural requirements, and termination.

These provisions require a prior internationally wrongful act attributable to the responsible state. The injured state must seek compliance with obligations arising from that wrongful act rather than pursue punishment or unrelated political objectives. Countermeasures must also respect applicable procedural requirements, preserve certain protected obligations, and remain proportionate to the injury and rights involved (International Law Commission, 2001, arts. 49–53).

The Articles on State Responsibility are not themselves a treaty. Several provisions reflect customary international law, while the customary status and precise application of others require separate assessment. Their relevance to the embargo lies in the legal framework they articulate, not in any assumption that the entire text independently creates binding treaty obligations.

The Cuban property dispute presents particular difficulties. The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission certified American claims under domestic statutory procedures, but those certifications are not international judicial decisions determining every aspect of Cuba's responsibility. An international countermeasure analysis must identify the specific obligation allegedly breached, establish the legal consequences of that breach, and determine which American measures would otherwise violate obligations owed to Cuba.

Proportionality presents a further challenge for an embargo maintained over several decades. Article 51 requires countermeasures to be commensurate with the injury suffered, considering the gravity of the wrongful act and the rights involved. The law also requires measures to be directed against the responsible state. Incidental effects on third parties do not necessarily invalidate a countermeasure, but an independent breach of obligations owed to third states cannot ordinarily be justified by invoking a wrongful act committed by Cuba.

The embargo's objectives have changed considerably since the original nationalizations. Restrictions introduced in response to historical property confiscations have subsequently been maintained or strengthened for reasons involving democratic governance, human rights, national security, and Cuba's international relationships. Under the law of state responsibility, a lawful countermeasure cannot be presumed merely because one government continues to assert unresolved claims against another.

These difficulties do not mean that the passage of time automatically extinguishes every American claim or prevents lawful responses to continuing internationally wrongful conduct. They establish the need for a more precise inquiry. The particular restriction, the obligation affected, the legal injury invoked, and the purpose and proportionality of the response must all be considered.

2.3 WTO Obligations and National Security Exceptions

The embargo also raises questions under international trade law. Cuba and the United States are members of the World Trade Organization, whose agreements regulate various aspects of trade between members. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 contains obligations concerning nondiscrimination, quantitative restrictions, transit, and the treatment of imported goods. The General Agreement on Trade in Services establishes additional requirements governing services and service suppliers, subject to its provisions and members' scheduled commitments.

A WTO violation cannot be inferred merely because the United States restricts trade with Cuba. The relevant inquiry must identify the particular American measure, the treaty obligation engaged, and any applicable exception. Restrictions on imports might raise questions under GATT Article XI, while discriminatory treatment may engage Articles I or III, depending on the measure. Rules affecting transit or the administration of quantitative restrictions may implicate other GATT provisions.

Measures affecting foreign service suppliers require a separate analysis under GATS. The obligations potentially engaged include most-favored-nation treatment, market access, national treatment, and transparency requirements. Their application depends on the nature of the service, the measure adopted, and the relevant treaty commitments and limitations.

National security exceptions are particularly important. Article XXI of GATT and Article XIV bis of GATS permit specified departures from ordinary obligations under defined conditions. WTO jurisprudence has rejected the proposition that a member's invocation of national security necessarily excludes all legal scrutiny. At the same time, the exceptions preserve significant state discretion, and their application to particular sanctions depends on the relevant treaty language and circumstances.

The European Communities challenged the Helms-Burton Act before the WTO on May 3, 1996. In dispute DS38, they alleged inconsistencies with GATT Articles I, III, V, XI and XIII and GATS Articles I, III, VI, XVI and XVII. The complaint addressed American restrictions affecting Cuban-origin goods, foreign economic operators, and the admission of certain non-US nationals.

A panel was established on November 20, 1996, but its work was suspended at the request of the European Communities in April 1997. Its authority lapsed on April 22, 1998, under Article 12.12 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding. No panel report determined whether the challenged measures breached WTO obligations (World Trade Organization, 1998, dispute DS38).

The proceedings provide evidence of a formal international trade dispute without resolving its merits. They cannot be cited as a decision establishing either the legality or illegality of the Helms-Burton Act. Any contemporary WTO assessment must consider the specific provisions engaged, applicable exceptions, and the characteristics of the measures now in force.

3. How the Embargo Became a Permanent US Policy

The embargo's legal foundations are inseparable from the political confrontation that followed the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Property nationalization, Cold War security concerns, and Cuba's relationship with the Soviet Union shaped Washington's initial response. What began as restrictions imposed largely through executive authority subsequently developed into a legislative system that considerably constrained the ability of later presidents to reverse the policy.

The transformation also changed the embargo's stated objectives. Although claims arising from confiscated American property remained important, successive administrations increasingly connected the sanctions to Cuba's political institutions, human rights record, and international relationships. The resulting legislation combined economic restrictions with conditions intended to influence governmental change in Cuba.

This history helps explain why the embargo persisted even during periods of diplomatic normalization. The president can modify many regulatory authorizations, but Congress established important statutory restrictions and conditions for their termination. The continuing application of the embargo reflects both American foreign policy choices and the distribution of constitutional authority between the executive and legislative branches.

3.1 The Cuban Revolution and the 1962 Embargo

Following the Cuban Revolution, the government led by Fidel Castro nationalized substantial foreign-owned assets, including American industrial, agricultural, and commercial property. The United States disputed the confiscations and the adequacy of compensation. Cuba defended the nationalizations as exercises of economic sovereignty associated with the transformation of its political and economic system. The dispute engaged international legal questions concerning expropriation, compensation, and the treatment of foreign investors.

The disagreements unfolded amid escalating Cold War tensions. Washington viewed Cuba's increasing alignment with the Soviet Union as a regional security threat, while Havana regarded American economic and political pressure as interference with its independence. Restrictions on trade preceded the comprehensive presidential proclamation issued in 1962.

On February 3, 1962, President Kennedy signed Proclamation 3447 under Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The proclamation prohibited imports of Cuban-origin goods beginning February 7 and directed the continuation of restrictions on American exports to Cuba. In July 1963, the Treasury Department introduced the Cuban Assets Control Regulations under the Trading with the Enemy Act, creating a regulatory system that remained central to the embargo decades later (US Proclamation 3447, 1962).

The unresolved property dispute acquired a formal administrative record through the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Its Cuban claims programs received 8,821 claims and certified 5,913 awards, with principal totaling $1,902,202,284.95. These figures concern claims adjudicated under the Commission's statutory authority, rather than a comprehensive valuation of every loss associated with US-Cuban relations.

The Commission confirmed in March 2026 that no settlement had been reached allowing payment of those awards. Their certification establishes the administrative determination of claims for purposes of the American statutory program and potential settlement negotiations. It does not constitute an international court's determination of every legal obligation arising from the nationalizations (Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 2026).

The claims remain relevant to negotiations over compensation and diplomatic relations. Their recognition under American law, however, does not independently establish the international legality of every subsequent sanction. The original nationalizations, the international rules governing compensation, and the legal character of later economic restrictions require separate analysis.

3.2 The Cuban Democracy Act and Helms-Burton

Congress substantially expanded the embargo through the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992. The legislation restricted certain dealings involving US-owned or controlled companies operating abroad and imposed conditions affecting vessels engaged in trade with Cuba. These measures increased the embargo's consequences for international commerce and intensified objections from countries whose companies were affected by American restrictions.

The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act, further consolidated the policy. Its provisions addressed support for political transition, claims involving confiscated property, and the treatment of certain foreign nationals associated with such property. Section 102(h) codified the economic embargo as it existed on March 1, 1996, including the restrictions contained in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.

The significance of codification was institutional as well as substantive. Congress transformed important elements of the sanctions system into statutory requirements, making their termination more difficult through executive action alone. Title II established conditions governing suspension and termination, while Titles III and IV created mechanisms affecting private litigation and admission of certain foreign nationals.

These mechanisms extended American policy beyond ordinary bilateral trade restrictions. Congress sought to discourage economic activity involving confiscated property and influence the conduct of foreign investors. The Act became a principal source of conflict with the European Union and other governments that rejected aspects of its extraterritorial application.

3.3 Normalization, Reversal, and the 2026 Sanctions

Presidents Barack Obama and Raúl Castro announced a process of diplomatic normalization in December 2014. The United States and Cuba restored diplomatic relations and reopened embassies in July 2015. American regulatory changes subsequently permitted additional travel-related transactions, financial activities, communications services, and certain commercial dealings. These developments reduced particular restrictions without repealing the statutory embargo.

A major reversal occurred in 2019, when the Trump administration ended the longstanding suspension of the civil right of action under Title III of Helms-Burton. American claimants could then pursue litigation concerning property confiscated by Cuba against defendants alleged to have engaged in activities covered by the statute. The underlying legislation had existed since 1996; what changed was the practical availability of its litigation mechanism.

The administration introduced additional measures in January 2026. Executive Order 14380, signed on January 29, declared a national emergency concerning Cuba and established a process through which additional tariffs could be imposed on goods imported from countries supplying oil to the island. The mechanism depended on administrative findings and presidential determinations. It did not automatically impose additional tariffs on every country supplying oil to Cuba.

The legal status of the tariff measures changed less than a month later. On February 20, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14389, Ending Certain Tariff Actions. The order terminated additional ad valorem duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including those associated with Executive Order 14380, and directed federal agencies to end their collection as soon as practicable (US President, 2026, Executive Order 14389).

Executive Order 14389 did not terminate the national emergency declared in January. Its express terms preserved that emergency and other actions that did not involve the terminated IEEPA tariff duties or steps necessary to implement them. The distinction is essential: the January oil-related tariff mechanism was no longer operative as an additional IEEPA tariff measure after the February order, but the underlying emergency declaration and other applicable sanctions authorities remained unaffected.

The administration subsequently introduced a separate sanctions framework. Executive Order 14404, issued on May 1, authorized restrictions against foreign persons determined to operate in designated sectors of the Cuban economy, provide specified support to the Cuban government or sanctioned persons, or engage in certain human rights abuses or corruption. The identification of a sector created potential sanctions exposure but did not automatically designate every company operating within it.

The Treasury Department implemented Executive Order 14404 through 31 CFR Part 516 in September 2026. On November 5, it identified electronics, manufacturing, marine activities, and technology as additional sectors potentially subject to sanctions under the order. These sectors supplemented those previously identified, including energy, defense-related activities, metals and mining, financial services, and security (US Treasury Department, 2026).

The September amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations separately tightened restrictions on financial transfers, banking relationships, and certain travel-related activities. Unlike the IEEPA tariff measures terminated in February, these regulatory amendments remained part of the sanctions framework in November 2026.

The sequence demonstrates how substantially American policy can change without repeal of the original embargo. The January tariff mechanism, its February termination, the May sanctions order, and the September regulatory amendments involved different authorities and legal consequences. Their distinction is necessary for assessing the restrictions actually in force.

4. Helms-Burton and Extraterritorial US Sanctions

The Helms-Burton Act lies at the center of the controversy over extraterritorial sanctions against Cuba. Its principal international legal difficulty arises when American legislation attaches legal consequences to commercial activity involving foreign persons, property situated in Cuba, and transactions conducted outside US territory. The issue concerns the distribution of regulatory authority among sovereign states rather than the mere existence of foreign elements in an American lawsuit.

International jurisdiction has several dimensions. Prescriptive jurisdiction concerns a state's authority to apply legal rules to conduct or persons. Adjudicative jurisdiction concerns the authority of courts to hear disputes. Enforcement jurisdiction concerns coercive action, including seizure of property or execution of judgments. These categories overlap in sanctions litigation, but each presents different legal questions.

The presence of a foreign defendant does not automatically make a lawsuit an unlawful exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. A company may have substantial operations, assets, contractual relationships, or other legally relevant connections with the United States. A careful assessment of extraterritorial jurisdiction in international law requires identifying the regulated conduct, the jurisdictional connection, the remedies sought, and the extent to which the measure interferes with another state's regulatory authority.

4.1 Title III and Liability for Confiscated Property

Title III of the Helms-Burton Act establishes a civil cause of action for qualifying United States nationals who hold claims to property confiscated by the Cuban government on or after January 1, 1959. Under 22 USC §6082, persons who knowingly and intentionally engage in activities constituting trafficking in such property may become liable for damages, subject to the statute's eligibility requirements, limitations, and exceptions.

The definition of trafficking is broader than purchasing or selling confiscated property. Section 6023(13) encompasses specified forms of commercial use, management, participation, and profit involving covered property. This makes the provision potentially significant for businesses operating hotels, ports, industrial facilities, or other assets connected with historical nationalizations.

The statute nevertheless excludes certain activities from its definition of trafficking. Among them are specified telecommunications transactions and uses of property incident to lawful travel to Cuba, insofar as those uses are necessary to conduct the travel. The scope of these exceptions can be decisive in litigation involving commercial activities that occurred with American regulatory authorization.

Title III's application to foreign commercial actors creates competing legal claims. The United States relies on congressional legislation protecting claims associated with its nationals and property previously confiscated from them. Other governments question whether those connections justify imposing American civil liability on companies whose relevant economic activities occur abroad and are lawful under the territorial state's legislation.

The jurisdictional assessment depends on the particular defendant and transaction. Nationality may provide a recognized connection where American persons are regulated abroad. Territorial jurisdiction may also arise through commercial operations, property, or legally significant conduct within the United States. More controversial claims concern independent foreign conduct whose primary connection with American law is a historical property claim held by a US national.

The legal controversy extends to remedies. A damages judgment issued by an American court may affect a defendant's assets or business interests in the United States even when the underlying commercial activity occurred elsewhere. Enforcement within American territory does not necessarily involve an unauthorized exercise of police authority abroad. It leaves a separate question concerning the international permissibility of the substantive jurisdiction asserted over the foreign conduct.

4.2 Title IV and the Exclusion of Foreign Nationals

Title IV of Helms-Burton establishes restrictions on admission to the United States for certain foreign nationals associated with property confiscated by Cuba. Its provisions address specified persons involved in trafficking and extend to certain corporate officers, controlling shareholders, and family members within the statutory categories. The mechanism operates through immigration restrictions rather than damages litigation.

Admission of foreign nationals is an area in which states ordinarily exercise extensive sovereign discretion. International law does not establish a general entitlement for every foreign business executive to enter another country. Visa restrictions may consequently rest on a stronger territorial jurisdictional basis than civil legislation governing commercial conduct performed abroad.

The international objection concerns the use of immigration powers to influence activities occurring principally within another country's jurisdiction. A foreign executive may face exclusion because of business dealings involving Cuban property, even though those dealings do not violate the law of the state where they occur.

Such consequences may generate diplomatic conflict and raise questions under particular treaty commitments. Their existence does not automatically establish that a specific exclusion violates international law. The applicable jurisdictional authority and any independent obligation limiting immigration discretion must be identified.

4.3 The 2026 US Supreme Court Decisions

The US Supreme Court issued two significant decisions concerning Helms-Burton in 2026. Both strengthened important aspects of the Act's operation under American law, although they addressed distinct legal questions. Their significance lies in statutory interpretation and the ability to pursue litigation, rather than in determining the international legitimacy of extraterritorial sanctions.

In Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., decided on May 21, the Court considered litigation involving cruise companies that used facilities at the Port of Havana between 2016 and 2019. Havana Docks Corporation had held a concession to develop and operate those facilities, but Cuba confiscated its property interest in 1960. The concession would otherwise have expired in 2004, before the cruise operations giving rise to the litigation.

The Eleventh Circuit had concluded that the expiration of the concession prevented liability based on the later use of the property. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned that Title III could encompass trafficking in the confiscated physical property, rather than only interference with the claimant's original time-limited legal interest.

The Court vacated the appellate judgment and remanded the case without resolving the cruise companies' remaining defenses. The ruling established an important interpretation of confiscated property under Title III, but it did not finally determine that every defendant was liable for every alleged transaction (Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 2026).

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote separately to identify issues that remained unresolved. One concerned the statutory exception for transactions and uses of property incident to lawful travel to Cuba. Another concerned the potential operation of damages remedies, including the risk of disproportionate or repeated recovery. Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the majority's interpretation of the relevant confiscated property.

The lawful-travel exception is particularly significant because the cruise operations took place during a period when American regulations permitted certain travel and transportation services involving Cuba. The Supreme Court did not determine whether the defendants' conduct fell within that exception. Nor did its interpretation of confiscated property eliminate the need to examine other statutory defenses on remand.

The second decision, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A., was delivered on June 23. Exxon had brought proceedings against Cuban state-owned entities associated with petroleum assets confiscated after the revolution. The central question concerned the relationship between Helms-Burton and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which ordinarily governs immunity from jurisdiction in American courts.

By a six-to-three majority, the Supreme Court held that the Helms-Burton Act abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities for covered actions under Title III. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, while Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The judgment reversed the appellate ruling and remanded the proceedings (Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A., 2026).

The decision did not establish Exxon's ultimate entitlement to compensation. The abrogation of statutory immunity does not resolve every requirement concerning jurisdiction, the merits of the claim, available defenses, or relief. The judgment addressed a particular domestic statutory question rather than the full legal relationship between Cuba and the United States.

Neither Supreme Court decision determined whether the relevant applications of Helms-Burton conform to customary international law. The American statutory treatment of confiscated property and foreign sovereign immunity must be distinguished from the international rules governing jurisdiction, state immunity, and responsibility. A domestic court's interpretation of congressional legislation cannot be treated as a general international judicial determination of the embargo's lawfulness.

5. What Does the UN Resolution on the Cuba Embargo Mean?

The United Nations General Assembly has opposed the American embargo through resolutions adopted almost every year since 1992. The regular voting process was interrupted in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the subject has otherwise remained a recurring item on the Assembly's agenda. These resolutions have called attention to sovereign equality, non-intervention, freedom of international trade, and the consequences of national legislation with extraterritorial effects.

The General Assembly's opposition carries substantial diplomatic weight, but its legal significance must be identified precisely. Under Article 10 of the UN Charter, the Assembly has broad authority to discuss matters within the Charter's scope and make recommendations. Its resolutions concerning the embargo do not constitute binding judicial judgments or Security Council enforcement decisions requiring the United States to repeal particular legislation.

The distinction does not make the resolutions irrelevant to international law. Official statements and voting explanations may contribute evidence concerning how states understand their legal obligations. Their significance depends on the language adopted, the circumstances of the vote, and whether the positions expressed reflect legal conviction rather than broader political preferences.

5.1 The Annual Votes and the 2026 UN Resolution

The General Assembly adopted its first resolution concerning the termination of the embargo on November 24, 1992. Resolution 47/19 received 59 votes in favor, three against, and 71 abstentions. It expressed concern about legislation with extraterritorial effects and urged states maintaining such measures to repeal or invalidate them in accordance with their respective legal systems (UN General Assembly, 1992).

Support subsequently increased dramatically. For many years, the resolutions attracted overwhelming majorities, reflecting widespread objections to the economic and diplomatic consequences of the American policy. Those votes established a durable pattern of international opposition, although the positions of supporting governments did not necessarily rest on identical legal reasoning.

On October 28, 2026, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 81/7 by 130 votes in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions. The result represented a considerable decline from the 2025 vote of 165 in favor, seven against, and 12 abstentions. The resolution nevertheless reiterated the call for an end to the embargo and expressed concern about extraterritorial legislation affecting other states and persons under their jurisdiction (UN General Assembly, 2026).

The changed voting pattern reflected diplomatic disagreements extending beyond the embargo itself. Several governments expressed concerns about Cuba's foreign policy and its relationship with Russia. The European Union also distinguished its opposition to extraterritorial American measures from its criticism of the Cuban government's domestic economic and human rights policies.

The results demonstrate that opposition to the embargo cannot be equated automatically with political support for Havana. Governments may oppose American extraterritorial restrictions while maintaining serious objections to Cuba's political institutions, international conduct, or treatment of civil liberties. The voting record documents the positions taken on the resolution rather than agreement on every aspect of the underlying dispute.

5.2 Binding Obligations and the Evidence of Customary Law

Resolution 81/7 calls on states to refrain from adopting or applying measures of the type addressed in its text and urges states maintaining them to take steps toward repeal. Its operative language must be read within the General Assembly's constitutional authority. The resolution does not itself create an enforceable international obligation requiring the United States to terminate the sanctions regime.

A separate question concerns whether repeated resolutions contribute to customary international law. Custom requires sufficiently general state practice accompanied by opinio juris, the acceptance of that practice as legally required or permitted. General Assembly resolutions may provide evidence of the second element, particularly when states explicitly present their positions as statements of legal obligation.

The International Court of Justice has recognized the potential evidentiary significance of General Assembly resolutions when identifying customary rules. Their wording, voting conditions, and subsequent state practice are relevant to that assessment. The formation of customary international law cannot, however, be reduced to counting affirmative votes. A majority supporting a policy objective does not independently demonstrate that a corresponding legal prohibition already exists.

The Cuban resolutions provide evidence of extensive opposition to extraterritorial economic restrictions, including objections expressed in the language of sovereignty and international law. That evidence must be assessed alongside continuing state practice involving unilateral sanctions, competing jurisdictional claims, and disagreements over the customary prohibition of economic coercion.

The resolutions consequently support a serious argument concerning the legal limits of sanctions without resolving every disputed element of that argument. Their central legal value lies in documenting states' positions and reinforcing scrutiny of restrictive measures under existing international rules. Political support for ending the embargo and the existence of a binding international prohibition remain separate propositions.

6. The European Union and the US Embargo Against Cuba

The European Union has consistently opposed the extraterritorial application of American sanctions affecting Cuba, particularly where those measures interfere with commercial activities governed by European law. Its position rests on the principle that foreign legislation should not displace the lawful regulatory authority of EU member states over companies and individuals operating within their jurisdiction.

The disagreement concerns the reach of American legal authority rather than an asserted obligation for the United States to maintain unrestricted bilateral trade with Cuba. European companies may engage in commercial activities permitted under EU and Cuban law while facing the possibility of American litigation, financial restrictions, or exclusion from the US market. Such exposure creates conflicts between legal systems and can discourage transactions that European law does not prohibit.

During the General Assembly debate of October 28, 2026, the EU reaffirmed its opposition to the embargo's extraterritorial effects. The statement, delivered by Ireland on behalf of the Union and its member states, characterized those effects as contrary to international law. It also acknowledged Cuba's responsibility for its domestic economic policies and called for political and economic reforms, alongside criticism of Cuba's position concerning Russia's war against Ukraine (European External Action Service, 2026).

The EU's position represents a formal legal and diplomatic objection to the American measures. It is significant evidence of disagreement concerning extraterritorial jurisdiction, but it is not an international judicial ruling establishing that every challenged American restriction violates international law.

6.1 The EU Blocking Statute and Helms-Burton

The principal European legislative response is Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, commonly known as the EU Blocking Statute. Adopted in November 1996, the regulation seeks to protect specified European economic operators against the effects of certain third-country laws with extraterritorial application. Its Annex identifies American legislative provisions covered by the regime, including provisions associated with the Cuban Democracy Act and Helms-Burton.

Article 4 prevents judgments and administrative decisions giving effect to the listed foreign legislation from being recognized or enforced within the European legal order. Article 5 generally prohibits persons covered by the regulation from complying with specified foreign requirements, whether directly or indirectly. The regulation also provides a procedure through which compliance may be authorized when failure to comply would seriously damage protected interests.

Article 6 establishes a mechanism for recovering damages caused by the application of the listed foreign legislation or actions resulting from it. These provisions seek to reduce the legal and economic consequences of extraterritorial measures. Their operation depends on the regulation's scope, applicable procedures, and the availability of effective remedies.

The Blocking Statute does not invalidate American legislation or deprive US courts of authority under American law. It also does not guarantee that European companies will remain unaffected by American restrictions. A foreign judgment may be denied recognition in the European Union while the defendant continues to face legal proceedings, financial exposure, or commercial consequences within the United States.

The regulation illustrates the limits of domestic legal responses to competing assertions of international jurisdiction. European legislation can restrict compliance and enforcement within the Union, but it cannot independently settle the international legal dispute. The existence of conflicting statutory obligations demonstrates regulatory disagreement; identifying an internationally wrongful act still requires application of the relevant rules of international law.

6.2 Conflicting Jurisdictions and Commercial Compliance

For multinational companies, conflicting sanctions requirements create practical difficulties beyond formal questions of jurisdiction. A European enterprise may conduct business in Cuba through contracts lawful under European legislation but rely on American banking institutions, payment networks, investors, or markets. Its exposure to American sanctions may consequently influence commercial decisions taken entirely outside the United States.

Financial institutions face similar problems. Banks may decline transactions involving Cuba because they fear sanctions investigations, regulatory penalties, or restrictions affecting their American operations. Such decisions are sometimes described as overcompliance or de-risking. They should be distinguished from transactions that American legislation expressly prohibits, since commercial risk management can produce restrictions exceeding the formal requirements of the law.

The Court of Justice of the European Union addressed the Blocking Statute in Bank Melli Iran v. Telekom Deutschland, Case C-124/20, decided on December 21, 2021. The proceedings concerned American sanctions against Iran, not Cuba. The Court held that Article 5 could prohibit compliance with covered foreign sanctions even without a specific instruction from an American authority. It also addressed the consequences of terminating contracts and the need to consider proportionality when assessing available remedies (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2021).

The judgment is relevant because it clarifies the operation of a regulation that also applies to specified American measures concerning Cuba. It does not establish that every contractual termination involving a sanctioned counterparty is unlawful. European courts must consider the factual circumstances, whether the relevant decision reflects prohibited compliance, and the legal consequences of enforcing the regulation.

The underlying conflict remains difficult to resolve through national courts alone. Companies may be compelled to choose between exposure to American restrictions and possible infringement of European obligations. Regulatory authorizations, diplomatic negotiations, and judicial remedies can reduce particular risks, but they cannot eliminate the broader disagreement over the permissible international reach of economic sanctions.

7. Human Rights and the Economic Effects of the Embargo

The humanitarian consequences of the embargo form an important part of the international legal debate. Restrictions affecting trade, financial transactions, transport, and energy supplies can influence access to food, medicines, health services, and other essential goods. Even where humanitarian transactions are authorized, payment difficulties, shipping costs, and uncertainty among financial institutions may obstruct their completion. The existence of formal exemptions does not establish that the intended humanitarian activity can always proceed effectively.

Cuba's economic difficulties have several interacting causes. American sanctions affect access to international finance, commercial partners, and certain goods and services. Domestic economic policies, institutional management, infrastructure deterioration, foreign-exchange shortages, and other structural conditions also influence living standards. A reliable assessment must distinguish the contribution of sanctions from other factors rather than attributing every shortage or economic failure to a single cause.

The international human rights framework recognizes interests directly affected by severe economic deprivation. Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights address an adequate standard of living, food, and health. The Covenant provides an important normative framework for examining the consequences of economic sanctions, but its application to the United States and Cuba requires an accurate understanding of their treaty status.

Cuba signed the Covenant on February 28, 2008, but has not ratified it. The United States signed it on October 5, 1977, and likewise has not ratified it. Neither state is a party to the ICESCR. The Covenant's substantive provisions cannot consequently be treated as ordinary treaty obligations binding either country by virtue of ratification.

Signature has a different legal significance from becoming a party. The obligation not to defeat a treaty's object and purpose, where applicable, is distinct from the full range of substantive duties arising after ratification. Other human rights obligations may derive from treaties binding the relevant state or from customary international law, but their existence and scope must be established independently. The fact that a right is recognized in the ICESCR does not alone establish that its treaty formulation binds a non-party.

Questions concerning extraterritorial human rights responsibility remain difficult. A state's economic measures may produce serious effects outside its territory without automatically placing all affected foreign individuals within its jurisdiction under every human rights instrument. The relevant obligations, their geographical scope, and the degree of control or involvement required must be established separately.

The 2026 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures provides substantial contemporary evidence concerning these consequences. Following a visit to Cuba between November 11 and 21, 2025, Alena Douhan reported that sanctions and overcompliance by other actors had severe effects on the Cuban population. The report identified particular vulnerability among children, older persons, women, persons with disabilities, people with chronic illnesses, and households experiencing poverty (UN Human Rights Council, 2026, A/HRC/63/29/Add.1).

The Special Rapporteur also questioned the practical effectiveness of exemptions and general licenses. According to the report, lengthy authorization processes, banking restrictions, and uncertainty among commercial actors impede activities that are formally permissible. These findings are relevant to evaluating the humanitarian operation of the embargo, particularly where financial restrictions interfere with access to essential goods.

The report's institutional status must nevertheless be understood accurately. A Special Rapporteur is an independent expert operating under a United Nations human rights mandate. The findings and legal assessments carry evidentiary and interpretive significance, but they are not binding judgments of an international court. They do not, without further analysis, establish that each American measure violates a specific human rights obligation.

The American government maintains that its sanctions regime contains humanitarian authorizations and that the Cuban authorities bear substantial responsibility for conditions affecting the population. Treasury guidance confirms the existence of licenses covering specified agricultural commodities, medicines, medical devices, and other humanitarian transactions. In May 2026, the Treasury Department also issued General License 1 to preserve activities already authorized or exempt under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations despite the additional prohibitions established by Executive Order 14404.

These authorizations are legally relevant, but their existence does not settle the broader humanitarian assessment. A regulatory exception may provide limited practical relief where banking institutions refuse payments, shipping arrangements are unavailable, or other restrictions prevent the authorized transaction from being completed. Conversely, the refusal of a private financial institution to process a transaction does not necessarily demonstrate that the transaction was prohibited under American law.

The restrictions affecting Cuba's international energy relationships require particular care because fuel availability influences electricity generation, transportation, water services, and the operation of health facilities. Executive Order 14380 introduced an oil-related tariff mechanism in January 2026, but Executive Order 14389 terminated the additional IEEPA tariff duties associated with that mechanism on February 20. Those terminated tariffs cannot be treated as an operative restriction responsible for subsequent economic conditions.

The termination did not remove the longstanding embargo, the continued national emergency, or other applicable sanctions. Restrictions involving designated persons, financial transactions, and activities covered by separate authorities may still affect energy-related commerce. Assessing their consequences requires identifying which measures remained applicable, how they operated, and whether particular shortages or disruptions can reasonably be attributed to them.

The humanitarian dimension cannot be dismissed as irrelevant merely because the embargo is principally economic. International law addresses the consequences of restrictive measures for civilian populations through several legal frameworks, including applicable human rights obligations and restrictions on countermeasures. Yet a defensible conclusion requires more than demonstrating severe economic conditions. It requires identifying the responsible actor, the applicable obligation, the relevant conduct, and the evidentiary basis for attributing particular consequences to that conduct.

8. Why the Cuba Embargo Continues and How It Could End

The persistence of the embargo reflects the interaction of domestic legislation, unresolved bilateral disputes, and American foreign policy objectives. Congress has established statutory restrictions that cannot all be removed through ordinary executive discretion. Successive presidents have nevertheless exercised considerable authority over licensing, regulatory implementation, and particular sanctions mechanisms, producing periods of greater or lesser economic engagement without terminating the underlying legislative framework.

The Helms-Burton Act contains specific provisions governing suspension and termination. Under 22 USC §6064(a), a presidential determination that a transition government is in power in Cuba permits specified steps toward suspending the embargo, following consultation with Congress and subject to statutory conditions. The provision also addresses suspension of the Title III right of action concerning certain subsequently filed claims against the Cuban government.

Section 6064(b) identifies provisions whose enforcement may be suspended under the statutory framework. These include specified restrictions under the Foreign Assistance Act, the Cuban Democracy Act, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. A statutory suspension mechanism is different from a general power to repeal legislation.

The requirements for recognizing a transition government are demanding. Section 6065 addresses political pluralism, the release of political prisoners, changes to state security institutions, and commitments concerning free and fair elections. The law links substantial sanctions relief to transformations in Cuba's political system rather than merely to the settlement of historical commercial claims.

Section 6064(c) establishes a separate mechanism following a presidential determination that a democratically elected government is in power in Cuba. Under that provision, the president must take steps to terminate the economic embargo, including restrictions under 31 CFR Part 515. Section 6064(d) provides for specified statutory repeals and amendments following the required determination. These consequences arise under the legislation itself and must be distinguished from an independent congressional repeal.

The distinction explains why diplomatic normalization alone has not ended the embargo. The restoration of diplomatic relations in 2015 did not satisfy the statutory conditions governing termination. American executive authorities could expand permissible travel, financial transactions, and other licensed activities, but they could not eliminate every congressional restriction through administrative action.

Congress retains authority to amend or repeal the embargo's statutory foundations through ordinary legislation. Such action would not necessarily resolve every outstanding dispute involving confiscated property, compensation, or claims pursued under American law. Those questions could require separate arrangements concerning restitution, financial settlement, or the treatment of pending litigation.

The policy's continuation also reflects competing interpretations of its objectives and effectiveness. American administrations have justified sanctions by reference to national security, democratic governance, human rights, and historical property claims. Critics contend that prolonged economic restrictions have failed to achieve fundamental political change while imposing substantial costs on ordinary Cubans and complicating relations with third countries. The persistence of the policy does not, by itself, establish either its effectiveness or its international legal justification.

The executive measures adopted in 2026 demonstrate why the different legal foundations of American sanctions must be distinguished. Executive Order 14380 established a conditional oil-related tariff mechanism, but Executive Order 14389 terminated the associated additional IEEPA tariff duties on February 20. The January national emergency nevertheless remained in effect, and the February order expressly preserved other measures outside the terminated tariff actions.

Executive Order 14404, issued in May, created separate sanctions authorities involving specified foreign persons, economic sectors, and activities. Its implementation through 31 CFR Part 516, together with the September amendments to Part 515, produced restrictions independent of the terminated tariff duties. Modifying or withdrawing these executive and regulatory measures would not necessarily repeal the underlying statutory embargo.

The legal status of a particular restriction must accordingly be determined through the authority that created it and any subsequent amendment, suspension, or termination. An executive order ending one sanctions mechanism does not automatically eliminate restrictions imposed by Congress or by separate executive instruments. The February 2026 termination of the oil-related tariff duties illustrates the possibility of significant executive policy changes without a general termination of the Cuba embargo.

International opposition cannot independently repeal American legislation. The General Assembly may recommend termination, and other governments may employ diplomatic measures or domestic legislation to protect their economic operators. Changes to the American sanctions regime depend on the relevant constitutional and statutory procedures, while any separate international responsibility must be assessed through applicable international legal rules.

Conclusion

The US embargo against Cuba cannot be classified as entirely lawful or unlawful through a single principle of international law. Restrictions confined to commerce within American jurisdiction generally fall within the sovereign authority of the United States, subject to treaty commitments and other applicable obligations. More difficult questions arise when American measures affect independent foreign companies, commercial transactions outside US territory, or the regulatory authority of third states.

The Helms-Burton Act illustrates the tension between domestic statutory authorization and international legal limits. Its civil liability and immigration provisions have generated objections concerning extraterritorial jurisdiction, while the 2026 Supreme Court decisions clarified aspects of its operation under American law without determining their conformity with international law. The European Union's Blocking Statute reflects a competing assertion of regulatory authority, and the General Assembly's repeated resolutions demonstrate extensive diplomatic opposition without constituting binding determinations that every American restriction is unlawful.

The developments of 2026 also demonstrate why the embargo must be assessed as an evolving collection of legal measures. The termination of the January oil-related tariff duties in February did not end the national emergency or the longstanding embargo. Separate sanctions authorities introduced in May and regulatory changes implemented in September remained relevant to the legal and economic relationship between Cuba, the United States, and third countries.

The most defensible legal conclusion is differentiated. The United States may lawfully impose certain unilateral trade restrictions, but that authority does not provide an unrestricted entitlement to regulate foreign economic activity or disregard independent international obligations. The legality of individual measures depends on their jurisdictional basis, their compatibility with applicable treaties, the limits imposed by non-intervention and state responsibility, and any justification available under international law. Resolving the broader dispute requires separating those legal questions from political disagreement over Cuba's government and the future of US-Cuban relations.

References

Charter of the Organization of American States (1948) Adopted 30 April 1948, entered into force 13 December 1951, 119 UNTS 3, No. 1609, as amended. Available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/charterOAS.asp (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 (1996) Council Regulation of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 309, 29 November, pp. 1–6, as amended. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31996R2271 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2021) Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH, Case C-124/20, judgment of the Grand Chamber, 21 December, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1035. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0124 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Cuba Sanctions Regulations (2026) 31 CFR Part 516, final rule of 30 September 2026, 91 Federal Register 61748–61758, Document No. 2026-19977. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-30/html/2026-19977.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Cuban Assets Control Regulations (1963) 31 CFR Part 515, originally issued 8 July 1963, as amended by the final rule of 30 September 2026, 91 Federal Register 61741–61748, Document No. 2026-19973. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-30/html/2026-19973.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 (1992) Public Law 102-484, Title XVII, 23 October 1992, 106 Stat. 2575, codified at 22 USC §§6001–6010. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-Pg2315.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (1996) Public Law 104-114, 12 March 1996, 110 Stat. 785, codified at 22 USC §§6021–6091. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ114/html/PLAW-104publ114.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

European External Action Service (2026) ‘EU Explanation of Vote – UN General Assembly: Draft Resolution A/81/L.5 on the Embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba’, 28 October [online]. Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/eu-explanation-vote-un-general-assembly-draft-resolution-a81l5-embargo-imposed-united-states-america_en (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (1961) Public Law 87-195, 4 September 1961, 75 Stat. 424, as amended, particularly Section 620(a), codified at 22 USC §2370(a). Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-1071/pdf/COMPS-1071.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (n.d.) ‘Completed Programs – Cuba’ [online]. US Department of Justice. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/fcsc/claims-against-cuba (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (1994) Annex 1A to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995, 1867 UNTS 187. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt94_e.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

General Agreement on Trade in Services (1994) Annex 1B to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995, 1869 UNTS 183. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gats_e.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, judgment of 27 June, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976, 993 UNTS 3. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

International Law Commission (2001) ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, UN Doc. A/56/10, Chapter IV. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Office of Foreign Assets Control (2026a) Cuba General License No. 1: Transactions Authorized Pursuant to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 7 May. US Department of the Treasury. Available at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/935571/download?inline= (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Office of Foreign Assets Control (2026b) ‘Cyber-related and Transnational Criminal Organizations Designations; Cuba Designations; Publication of Cuba-related Determination’, 5 November [online]. US Department of the Treasury. Available at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20261105 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Organization of American States (2009) Resolution on Cuba, AG/RES. 2438 (XXXIX-O/09), adopted 3 June 2009. Available at: https://www.oas.org/ext/en/main/oas/member-states/cuba (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (2000) Public Law 106-387, Title IX, 28 October 2000, 114 Stat. 1549A-67, codified at 22 USC §§7201–7211. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-106publ387/html/PLAW-106publ387.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (1992) Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba, Resolution 47/19, UN Doc. A/RES/47/19, adopted 24 November 1992. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/158766 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (2025) Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba, Resolution 80/4, UN Doc. A/RES/80/4, adopted 29 October 2025. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4091600 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (2026) Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba, Resolution 81/7, UN Doc. A/RES/81/7, adopted 28 October 2026. Available at: https://mandates.un.org/mandate/A/RES/81/7 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United Nations Human Rights Council (2026) Visit to Cuba: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Alena Douhan, UN Doc. A/HRC/63/29/Add.1, 9 July 2026. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/63/29/Add.1 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.) ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Status of Treaties, Chapter IV, No. 3’ [online]. United Nations Treaty Collection. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-3&src=TREATY (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States President (1962) Proclamation 3447: Embargo on All Trade with Cuba, 3 February 1962, 27 Federal Register 1085. Available at: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/03447.html (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States President (2026a) Executive Order 14380: Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba, 29 January 2026, 91 Federal Register 5085. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202600069/html/DCPD-202600069.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States President (2026b) Executive Order 14389: Ending Certain Tariff Actions, 20 February 2026. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202600131/html/DCPD-202600131.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States President (2026c) Executive Order 14404: Imposing Sanctions on Those Responsible for Repression in Cuba and for Threats to United States National Security and Foreign Policy, 1 May 2026, 91 Federal Register 25061. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-202600302 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States Supreme Court (2026a) Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), No. 24-699, opinion of 23 June 2026. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-699.html (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

United States Supreme Court (2026b) Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 24-983, opinion of 21 May 2026. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-983.html (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

White, N.D. (2019) ‘Ending the US embargo of Cuba: International law in dispute’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 51(1), pp. 163–186. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X18000718 (Accessed: 13 November 2026).

World Trade Organization (1998) United States – The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, dispute DS38, panel proceedings terminated 22 April 1998 [online]. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds38_e.htm (Accessed: 13 November 2026).