US Cuba embargo 'crosses the line under international law'

Professor Michael Schmitt is an expert in international law rules governing warfare at the School of Law, University of Reading. Writing with Rob McLaughlin (University of Wollongong), he has published a detailed legal analysis of the US oil embargo against Cuba in Just Security.

Highlighting their analysis, Professor Schmitt said:

"Whatever you call it, blockade, embargo or oil denial campaign, the label makes no legal difference. No international armed conflict exists between the US and Cuba, so the law of naval warfare simply does not apply. The relevant framework is the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force and the customary international law rule of non-intervention.

"On the use of force question, the embargo does not currently cross that threshold. Economic pressure, however severe, is not the same as armed force under international law. But the repeated statements by President Trump and senior officials threatening military action against Cuba are a different matter. Those constitute threats of the use of force, which are themselves prohibited under the Charter.

"The stronger finding concerns intervention. A campaign deliberately designed to deprive an entire country of its primary energy source, with the stated aim of bringing down its government, goes well beyond lawful pressure. The administration has been open about wanting regime change in Cuba. That is the clearest possible example of unlawful interference in the internal affairs of another state.

"None of this means the United States cannot criticise Cuba, impose sanctions, restrict trade or pursue diplomacy. The point is not that all pressure is unlawful. It is that international law places firm limits on the means used to pursue even legitimate objectives, and this campaign has crossed them."