"Unilateral sanctions with extraterritorial reach erode the multilateral trading order." Discuss with reference to the U.S. measures against Cuba.

A sanction has extraterritorial reach when one state punishes third countries for trading with its target. The U.S. embargo on Cuba has run since 1960, when it began as a partial embargo, and became full in 1962 [5]. In 2026 it was reinforced by an executive order threatening tariffs on Cuba's oil suppliers and by Coast Guard interception of tankers [5]. It shows clearly how such measures weaken the rules-based multilateral order.

How extraterritorial sanctions erode the order

• Secondary sanctions: threatening tariffs on any country that supplies oil to Cuba moves the cost onto third states [5]. The Helms-Burton Act also extends U.S. penalties to foreign firms [1].
• Defiance of collective will: the UNGA has adopted its resolution against the embargo every year for 33 years and passed it 165-7-12 in 2025 [1]. India has warned that the embargo undermines multilateralism and the credibility of the UN itself [4].
• Over-compliance: banks and shippers avoid even legal trade because they fear U.S. penalties. The UN Special Rapporteur found that this hits food, health and education [3].
• From trade measure to coercion: stopping tankers at sea is blockade-type action. With power cuts of 12–20 hours a day, UN experts have called it "energy starvation" [5]. Threats of a takeover clash with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter [5].
• Systemic alarm: in July 2026 the UNGA reopened debate on Washington's "extreme extraterritorial" actions [2].

The counter-view

• Sanctions are a sovereign foreign-policy choice, and humanitarian exemptions exist. However, the UN expert found that these exemptions fail in practice [3].
• Support for the resolution fell from 187 votes in 2024 to 165 in 2025. Ukraine, Argentina and Hungary voted "No" [1], which reflects alignments in the Ukraine war rather than support for extraterritorial sanctions.
• The order is strained but not broken: 136 states voted to debate the blockade despite U.S. objections [5].

Implications for India

• India consistently votes "Yes" [4]. The same tariff-threat model could later target India's own energy partners.
• India should back UN calls for humanitarian carve-outs that work in practice and seek clear assurances for Indian banks handling exempt trade [3].

The Cuba case shows that extraterritorial sanctions turn a bilateral dispute into a cost borne by the whole trading system. The way forward is exemptions that actually function, settling disputes through multilateral forums, and dialogue in place of coercion. This fits the UN Charter's principle of sovereign equality and SDG 17's global partnership. India's commitment to multilateralism makes it a natural champion of these rules.