Between the rhetoric of human rights and the reality of hegemony: the Magnitsky Act as an instrument of international intervention.

Introduction

Since the Second World War, the construction of an international system based on multilateral cooperation and respect for the sovereignty of peoples has presented itself as an undeniable civilizational achievement. The creation of the United Nations (UN) introduced the principle of self-determination into international law, laying the legal and moral foundations for the decolonization process that would accelerate in the following decades. Although it did not immediately abolish colonialism – even establishing a Trusteeship System to manage the transition of some territories – the organization became the central arena where national liberation movements found support to end the colonial, imperialist, and interventionist practices that marked the previous centuries.

However, in contemporary times, we observe a resurgence of interference mechanisms disguised as defenses of democracy and human rights. Among these mechanisms, the so-called Magnitsky Act stands out, originally approved in the United States in 2012 and subsequently expanded, under the justification of sanctioning individuals and governments accused of human rights violations and corruption.

Although cloaked in moralizing rhetoric, the practical application of the Magnitsky Act demonstrates selectivity and serves as an instrument of political and economic coercion by the US, transforming law into a weapon of international domination and destabilization. The situation becomes even more worrying in the current scenario, marked by the return of Donald Trump to power and his agenda strongly aligned with far-right sectors, which combine political authoritarianism and economic irresponsibility with practices of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries.

This article seeks to analyze the real interests behind the so-called Magnitsky Act, pointing out the inconsistencies in its selective application by the United States and discussing how this unilateral policy has been used as a weapon of interference, eroding the sovereignty of peoples, weakening democracy, and distorting international trade relations.

Magnitsky's Law: origin and stated objectives

The Magnitsky Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2012, initially targeting Russia, in response to the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who had exposed a corruption scheme involving Russian state officials. According to the official U.S. narrative, the law was intended to hold public officials accountable for human rights violations and corrupt practices, freezing their assets and prohibiting their entry into U.S. territory.

In 2016, the US Congress approved the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability ActBy expanding the scope of the legislation to reach individuals from anywhere in the world, the US has granted itself the prerogative to apply extraterritorial sanctions to foreign citizens and governments, based on investigations conducted by its own agencies, without the need for an international judicial decision.

In official rhetoric, the law was presented as a landmark of the American commitment to the protection of human rights. However, practice reveals that its application does not follow universal criteria, but rather geopolitical and economic considerations. Countries that are adversaries of the US become priority targets, while strategic allies, even those involved in serious violations, remain immune.

The political use of Magnitsky's Law

Selectivity is the main characteristic of the application of the Magnitsky Act. While governments classified as enemies or adversaries by the United States—such as Russia, Venezuela, China, or Iran—are quickly sanctioned, allied countries, even when involved in serious violations, almost never face similar measures. Brazil, especially at this moment of greater international prominence or divergence from the current US agenda, has also become a potential target.

This reveals that the law is far from representing a universal commitment to human rights: in practice, it is a mechanism of political and economic pressure. This logic demonstrates the instrumental character of the law, used as a tool of coercion. US unilateralism constitutes not only an affront to the sovereignty of states, but also a violation of the principle of sovereign equality among nations, as stipulated in Article 2 of the UN Charter (1945).

Furthermore, the law does not recognize international jurisdictional bodies, such as the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, preferring to impose coercive measures autonomously. This behavior highlights the contradiction of the US: they demand respect for human rights, but refuse to subject their own citizens and authorities to international oversight bodies.

Sovereignty and international law

The principle of state sovereignty constitutes the cornerstone of contemporary international law. The self-determination of peoples and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states have been reaffirmed in various international documents, such as the Declaration of Principles of International Law of 1970 and the Charter of the United Nations itself.

In this sense, the unilateral use of the Magnitsky Act by the US constitutes a direct violation of these principles. It is domestic legislation being used as a global mechanism for punishment, transcending borders and creating a kind of "selective universal jurisdiction" dictated by US national interests.

The international protection of human rights must occur within multilateral frameworks, conducted by bodies with universal legitimacy, and not through the unilateral imposition of one State on others. When applied selectively, this logic of sanctions undermines the credibility of the international system and weakens the principles that should underpin international law itself.

Donald Trump, the far right, and international economic irresponsibility.

The rise of Donald Trump to power in 2017 (after being elected in 2016) and his return in 2025 (after being re-elected in 2024) represent a turning point in the use of the Magnitsky Act and its political instrumentalization. Trump, aligned with sectors of the global far-right, adopts a discourse that combines economic nationalism, climate change denial, and diplomatic belligerence.

Among his most notorious practices is the use of tariff policy as a weapon of coercion. Trump transformed import tariffs into an instrument of retaliation, applying them against foreign products not for legitimate commercial reasons, but as a way to pressure governments and impose political alignments.

In the case of the Magnitsky Act, his administration expanded the list of sanctions and reinforced the idea that the U.S. has the right to punish foreign governments according to its own criteria, even when this implies direct interference in the internal legal processes of other countries.

This is a paradox: while Trump frequently accuses other governments of corruption and authoritarianism, he has promoted systematic attacks on American democratic institutions (such as questioning elections and inciting violence) and maintained strategic alliances with autocratic politicians, such as Jair Bolsonaro, Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey).

The contradictions of US foreign policy

Historically, United States foreign policy has combined a rhetorical defense of democracy and human rights with concrete practices of intervention and domination. In this context, as Cameroonian political scientist Achille Mbembe aptly illustrates, it can be interpreted as a form of "global necropolitics," in which the US arrogates to itself the power to decide who should live and who should die, who deserves to be sanctioned and who will be spared.

While countries like Cuba, Venezuela, or Iran suffer severe sanctions, allies like Saudi Arabia or Israel remain untouched, despite serious accusations of human rights violations. This contradiction reveals that the objective is not to protect universal principles, but to guarantee geopolitical hegemony.

Furthermore, the US ignores multilateral bodies, preferring to act unilaterally. The weakening of the World Trade Organization (WTO) during the first Trump administration illustrates this disregard for the rules of international trade.

Impacts on international trade relations

The sanctions stemming from the Magnitsky Act and the abusive use of tariffs have disastrous effects on global trade. They distort the principle of free competition, create artificial barriers, and undermine trust between countries.

According to American economist Joseph Stiglitz, unilateral and punitive trade policies cause instability in markets and weaken global supply chains. Instead of stimulating cooperation, this type of measure fuels trade wars and generates a climate of widespread distrust.

In the medium and long term, such practices tend to weaken multilateralism and favor the emergence of alternative blocs of economic and political cooperation. It is in this context that groupings such as the BRICS gain relevance, presenting themselves as a counterpoint to the traditional hegemony of the United States.

The role of Brazil and countries of the Global South

Brazil, as a major emerging economy and member of BRICS, cannot shy away from the debate about the limits of the Magnitsky Act and the need to defend its sovereignty against external interference.

Latin American historical experience demonstrates how the region has been a constant target of US interventions, justified by doctrines such as "Manifest Destiny" and the Monroe Doctrine. The imposition of unilateral sanctions today fits into this same logic of tutelage and subordination.

It is essential that Brazil strengthen its international presence through strategic alliances with countries of the Global South, expanding spaces for South-South cooperation and reinforcing regional organizations such as CELAC and Mercosur. Only through unity is it possible to resist the arbitrary actions of hegemonic powers.

Conclusion

An analysis of the Magnitsky Act reveals that, far from being a neutral instrument for the defense of human rights, it functions as a tool of political and economic coercion serving the geopolitical interests of the United States.

Under the administration of Donald Trump, this instrument takes on even more worrying dimensions, combining with punitive tariff policies and a far-right agenda that threatens global democracy, the sovereignty of peoples, and the stability of international trade relations.

Defending sovereignty, self-determination, and multilateralism is an indispensable condition for preserving democracy and building a just international order. By questioning the legitimacy of the Magnitsky Act and its inconsistencies, the need for global governance based on cooperation, not coercion; on equality among nations, not unilateral hegemonies, is reaffirmed.