BY: ARJUN KAMINENI
Image Credits: Kmiragaya on stock.adobe.com.
Introduction
Cuba is an island nation ruled by a Communist government, just 90 miles from the United States. Its only major city is Havana, which serves as the nation’s capital. Since 1961, Cuba has been under an embargo from the U.S. government due to the strained relations between the two countries. Since then, the embargo on Cuba has drawn condemnation from the UN and human rights groups as a violation of international law.
The Early History of Cuba
Cuba was an island inhabited by indigenous Americans until the arrival of Christopher Columbus in 1492. Cuba remained a Spanish colony from 1511 until 1898 (except 1762-1763, when the English occupied Havana). When the Spanish were defeated in the Spanish-American War of 1898, it came under U.S. military occupation until 1902. In 1906, the U.S. reimposed military occupation through the Platt Amendment, which gave the U.S. the power to intervene in all of Cuba’s affairs, turning the country into a de facto U.S. colony. Following independence, Cuba underwent a turbulent period of dictatorships and American rule. Cuba had a short-lived “Age of Democracy” from 1940 to 1952; unfortunately, it was upended by the coup of General Fulgencio Batista, who ruled as the dictator of Cuba from 1952 to 1959. Batista was highly unpopular, initially recognized by the U.S., and ruled brutally, killing and torturing Cuban civilians. He was overthrown by revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro in the 1959 Cuban Revolution.
The Embargo on Cuba
The Cuban Revolution led to the implementation of a Communist government, which nationalized Cuban resources that were previously being exploited by American corporations; prior to the revolution, American corporations owned roughly 75% of arable land in Cuba. This led to a souring of U.S.-Cuba relations, which worsened further when Castro sought the support of the Soviet Union. The U.S. attempted to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961, but failed. In 1962, the U.S. switched its strategy to a full economic embargo of Cuba. The initial terms of this embargo included a complete ban on imports from Cuba as well as exports to Cuba. It was expanded further in 1962 via a ban on any imports that contained Cuban materials, effectively preventing most corporations worldwide from incorporating Cuban exports into their production processes at all. The current day terms of the embargo include the continuation of the general trade bans, but now with some specific exceptions (e.g., food and medicine, although still subject to restrictions). The U.S. has also imposed significant travel and financial restrictions on Cuba.
The embargo has had a significant impact on the economy of Cuba. In 2021, it was estimated to have cost Cuba $144 billion. Some may argue that this is offset by Soviet aid; however, the economic benefit of Soviet aid is estimated to be valued at $65 billion, significantly lower than the amount lost through the embargo. A 1997 study found that the embargo on Cuba had led to declining nutritional levels, rising rates of infectious disease, and increasing costs of food and medicine. The study concluded that Cuba’s strong health system, which provides universal access and rationing of medical resources (which experienced soaring prices as a result of the embargo), prevented what would’ve otherwise been a major health crisis. Additionally, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights at the UN said that the U.S. embargo on Cuba had negative impacts on their ability to properly respond to the COVID-19 crisis, leading to an indeterminate cost in human lives.
Evaluating the Legality of the U.S. Embargo on Cuba
In October of 2025, for the 33rd consecutive year, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Under international law, international reprisals (such as the U.S. embargo on Cuba) are justified if done proportionally in response to some prior grievance and after a failure of negotiations. This is a view of international law that the U.S. Department of State also agrees with and defends its embargo on Cuba under this principle. That being said, the U.S. embargo on Cuba is likely not a proportional response to grievances.
The main international grievance the U.S. has against Cuba is the expropriation of American assets after the Cuban Revolution. However, it isn’t clear that Cuba violated international law through its nationalization of American assets. International law allows a sovereign state to nationalize resources, provided the private entities are offered proper compensation for their seized assets. An academic journal examining the legality of the U.S. embargo concluded, “There is equally no merit to the claim of inadequate compensation. The Cuban compensation formula, contained in Law No. 851 of July 6, 1960, provided for payment for the expropriated property in 30-year bonds bearing interest at the rate of at least two percent.” As such, the Cuban government likely did not violate international law in its expropriation of American assets, making any ‘reprisal’ difficult to justify.
Even if the actions of the Cuban government were illegal, it is questionable whether the scope of the reprisal was appropriate. As previously discussed, the economic embargo has cost Cuba $144 billion, along with the humanitarian impacts of the embargo. In contrast, according to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, the highest estimates for the value of assets (in today’s dollars) seized by Cuba are “some $10 billion.” As such, the continuation of the U.S. embargo on Cuba is not a proportional response to the perceived grievance. This makes it unlikely to be legal under international law.
Furthermore, the U.S. embargo could be considered a form of economic coercion, which is considered illegal by the UN. The General Assembly Declaration on Non-Intervention in 1965 states: “No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind.” The original purpose of the U.S. embargo on Cuba meets this definition. A declassified CIA document states that the embargo was intended to “deny money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, [and] to bring about hunger, desperation, and the overthrow of [the] government.” This clearly fits the definition of using economic coercion to prevent a state from exercising its sovereign rights, as the United States was hoping to bring about the overthrow of the Cuban government through manufacturing economic hardship.
Conclusion
The U.S. embargo on Cuba may be considered illegal under international law through multiple lenses. First, it has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations General Assembly, which in itself may be enough to consider it illegal under international law. Second, it is a disproportionate and unwarranted reprisal for a perceived grievance, which is illegal under international law. Finally, it is a form of economic coercion that aims to undermine the sovereignty of Cuba, which is also illegal under international law.
Additionally, the U.S. embargo on Cuba has proven ineffective in its policy objectives. Although it has been in place for upwards of 60 years, Cuba’s government remains in power. Regime change in Cuba appears not to be something that can be imposed from the outside. If the U.S. wishes to pursue its policy objectives while abiding by international law, it may be advantageous to lift the blockade on Cuba.
This article was edited by Sofia Ramirez and Afreen Ahmad.