La (no) violación de la soberanía de los estados a través de la Ley Magnitsky: entre la responsabilidad internacional individual y la política de sanciones

• Autores: Gabriel Oliveira de Aguiar Borges
• Localización: Relaciones internacionales, ISSN-e 1699-3950, Nº. 62, 2026, págs. 12-33
• Idioma: español
• Títulos paralelos:
  • The (non) violation of state sovereignty through the Magnitsky Act: between individual international responsibility and the politics of sanctions
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen
  • español

    Este artículo analiza la Ley Magnitsky y su expansión internacional como un instrumento jurídico-político de sanciones selectivas dirigidas contra individuos responsables de violaciones graves de derechos humanos y corrupción, con el objetivo de determinar si su aplicación constituye una violación de la soberanía estatal o, por el contrario, un mecanismo legítimo de responsabilidad internacional individual. La hipótesis central sostiene que estas sanciones no vulneran la soberanía en sentido estricto, pues afectan a personas concretas y no a estados, aunque generan tensiones con el paradigma clásico por su carácter unilateral, la ausencia de aval del Consejo de Seguridad y el riesgo de instrumentalización política. El enfoque metodológico es cualitativo, analítico y normativo, basado en la revisión crítica de doctrina, normas y resoluciones internacionales, así como en el examen comparado de experiencias estatales y regionales. El marco teórico estudia la soberanía desde su formulación westfaliana hasta las transformaciones contemporáneas que introducen la noción de soberanía como responsabilidad y los límites derivados de los derechos humanos. El artículo se organiza en seis secciones: la introducción plantea problema, hipótesis y relevancia; la segunda sección desarrolla el marco conceptual en tres apartados (soberanía clásica, transformaciones contemporáneas y derechos humanos como límite); la tercera examina la Ley Magnitsky y sus implicaciones jurídicas en cuanto a origen, naturaleza y compatibilidad con el Derecho Internacional; la cuarta ofrece estudios de caso centrados en Estados Unidos y Rusia, la Unión Europea y América Latina (con especial atención a Venezuela, Nicaragua y otros casos latinoamericanos); la quinta presenta un debate crítico entre los argumentos que consideran estas sanciones una violación de la soberanía y aquellos que las entienden como manifestación de la responsabilidad internacional individual; finalmente, la sexta sección formula conclusiones sobre el impacto normativo y político de este modelo de sanciones, subrayando que, aunque sus efectos prácticos sobre los regímenes sancionados son limitados, su valor simbólico y diplomático es significativo al consolidar la transición hacia un orden internacional en el que la soberanía se entiende como un poder condicionado por el respeto a la dignidad humana.

  • English

    This article examines the Magnitsky Act and its global diffusion as an innovative legal and political in-strument of targeted sanctions aimed at individuals responsible for gross human rights violations and significant acts of corruption, with the purpose of determining whether such measures constitute a viola-tion of state sovereignty or, alternatively, represent a legitimate manifestation of individual international responsibility within the evolving framework of contemporary international law.The central research question reflects a broader theoretical tension that has become increasingly visible in the twenty-first century: the tension between the traditional Westphalian understanding of sovereign-ty and the progressive consolidation of international norms centered on the protection of human rights and the accountability of individuals. Unlike traditional economic embargoes or comprehensive sanctions imposed against entire states, Magnitsky-type sanctions are designed to target specific perpetrators, typically through measures such as asset freezes in the jurisdiction of the sanctioning state and travel bans that prevent sanctioned individuals from entering its territory. Because they are directed at individ-uals rather than states, these sanctions seek to reduce humanitarian consequences for civilian popula-tions while simultaneously increasing pressure on political elites and individuals responsible for abuses.The central hypothesis of this article is that Magnitsky sanctions do not strictly violate state sovereignty because they do not directly target the state as a collective entity, although they do generate tensions with the classical paradigm of sovereignty due to their unilateral nature, the absence of authorization by the United Nations Security Council, and the possibility of political instrumentalization. From a method-ological perspective, the study adopts a qualitative, analytical, and normative approach typical of legal and international relations scholarship. The analysis is based on a critical review of specialized academ-ic literature, international legal instruments, United Nations documents, and relevant jurisprudence, combined with the examination of empirical case studies that illustrate how Magnitsky-style sanctions operate in practice across different geopolitical contexts. By integrating doctrinal analysis with empirical observation, the article seeks to evaluate both the legal foundations and the political implications of these sanctions.The theoretical framework reconstructs the evolution of the concept of sovereignty from its classical formulation to its contemporary reinterpretation. Traditionally associated with the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, sovereignty has long been understood as the supreme authority of the state over its territory and population, combined with the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states. Classical international law reinforced this conception by treating sovereignty as an essential attribute of statehood and by emphasizing the autonomy of states within the international system. However, throughout the twentieth century, and particularly after the Second World War, this paradigm began to evolve. The creation of the United Nations, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and the development of international criminal justice institutions progressive-ly introduced limitations to the notion of absolute sovereignty. Contemporary scholarship increasingly emphasizes the idea of “sovereignty as responsibility,” according to which states are not only holders of sovereign rights but also bear responsibilities toward their populations and the international community.This reinterpretation is reflected in the emergence of concepts such as erga omnes obligations, jus co-gens norms, and the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect, all of which suggest that sovereignty can no longer function as an unconditional shield against scrutiny when serious violations of human rights occur. Within this evolving normative environment, mechanisms designed to hold individuals account-able for grave abuses have gained growing importance. Against this theoretical background, the article examines the origin, development, and legal nature of the Magnitsky framework. The first Magnitsky legislation was adopted in the United States in 2012 in response to the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died in prison after exposing a large corruption scheme involving government offi-cials. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act initially targeted Russian officials connected to the case through financial sanctions and visa restrictions. The adoption of the Global Magnitsky Hu-man Rights Accountability Act in 2016 expanded the scope of this mechanism worldwide, allowing the United States to sanction individuals implicated in serious human rights abuses or corruption regardless of nationality or location. Since then, the Magnitsky model has been adopted or replicated by several jurisdictions, including Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia, contributing to the emergence of a transnational sanctions regime centered on individual accountability. The empirical section of the article analyzes three geopolitical contexts in which Magnitsky-style sanctions have been applied. The first con-cerns the confrontation between the United States and Russia, where the adoption of the Magnitsky Act triggered significant diplomatic tensions and retaliatory measures from Moscow, including the adoption of the so-called Dima Yakovlev Law.In this context, Magnitsky sanctions became not only a legal instrument but also a symbol of geopolitical rivalry and normative dispute. The second case study focuses on the European Union’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime adopted in 2020, which allows the EU to impose targeted sanctions on individ-uals and entities responsible for serious human rights violations worldwide. The EU has applied these measures in several sensitive contexts, including sanctions against Chinese officials linked to abuses in Xinjiang, members of the Myanmar military following the 2021 coup, and individuals associated with repression in Venezuela. The third case study examines the application of targeted sanctions in Latin America, particularly in relation to Venezuela and Nicaragua, where the United States, the European Union, Canada and the United Kingdom have imposed sanctions against political and security officials accused of corruption, electoral manipulation and repression of political opposition.These cases illustrate both the symbolic significance and the practical limitations of Magnitsky sanctions: while they contribute to international visibility and diplomatic isolation of sanctioned individuals, their direct impact on regime change or democratization remains limited. The article then presents a critical debate between two opposing perspectives in the literature. On the one hand, critics argue that Mag-nitsky sanctions violate sovereignty because of their unilateral character, the absence of Security Council authorization and the risk that they may be used selectively as instruments of geopolitical pressure or lawfare. On the other hand, supporters contend that these sanctions reflect a broader transformation of international law toward individual accountability and represent a pragmatic response to the paralysis of multilateral mechanisms when political deadlock prevents collective action.In its conclusions, the article argues that Magnitsky sanctions should not be interpreted primarily as in-struments aimed at transforming political regimes, but rather as mechanisms that reinforce the principle that impunity for grave abuses is increasingly unacceptable in the international order. Their main impact lies in their symbolic, reputational and diplomatic effects, particularly in isolating perpetrators and rein-forcing the universal value of human rights. Ultimately, the Magnitsky framework can be understood as a laboratory of global governance that reveals the dilemmas of contemporary international law between sovereignty and responsibility, unilateral initiatives and multilateral legitimacy, and the enduring tension between the protection of state autonomy and the defense of human dignity.