This article originally appeared in The Conversation.
Hostage-taking by nation-states is emerging as an overlooked consequence of the more unstable and dangerous world that's been created by the fracturing rules-based order.
In an increasingly might-is-right system of international relations, malign actors have become even more emboldened to take the citizens of Western democracies hostage.
Once primarily the domain of non-state actors, including terror groups, drug cartels and armed gangs, hostage-taking has become a lucrative bargaining chip in the hands of countries like Iran, Russia, China, North Korea and Venezuela. (I was imprisoned by Iran for more than two years on false charges of espionage.)
Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert.
It has become an unorthodox yet highly effective means of forcing concessions, including prisoner swaps, financial payments and the removal of sanctions.
The unfortunate truth is that hostage diplomacy works, and there is usually a lot to gain and not much to lose for the countries that practice it.
However, very little scholarly research has examined the phenomenon. The data we do have on cases is patchy. This is in part because the governments whose citizens have been taken hostage usually prefer to negotiate in the shadows. We only tend to hear about select cases that attract media coverage.
Treating state hostage-taking as a consular issue to be solved via traditional diplomacy hasn't worked. Bad actors haven't been deterred; rather the opposite. An innovative new approach is long overdue.
What we've found
A new, special edition of the the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism (which I guest edited) highlights some possible policy solutions.
Grappling with this issue requires us to ask: what kinds of dynamics are motivating states to take hostages in the first place? And how can governments take better care of former hostages and their families?
The special issue is a collaborative effort between practitioners and scholars, featuring contributors from a variety of backgrounds. These include human rights lawyers who have represented victims, the current UN special rapporteur on torture, activists, specialists in trauma recovery, and even former hostages themselves.
Some of the ideas put forward in our research include:
1) Expanded international legal approaches
This includes reframing state hostage-taking as a form of torture and, under certain conditions, even a war crime or crime against humanity.
UN torture rapporteur Alice Edwards argues this would help open avenues for victims seeking justice. Many have been frustrated by impediments to restitution when a nation-state is responsible for hostage-taking, not an individual.
Legal academic Carla Ferstman suggests governments should look to existing models in the US and Canada and consider passing legislation to allow victims of state-sponsored terrorism to sue hostage-taking states in their domestic courts.
2) Stronger government-led responses to hostage-taking
Many countries don't have a designated office or role within government to coordinate domestic and multilateral responses to hostage-taking.
These positions exist now in the US and Canada. This step was also proposed in a 2024 Australian Senate inquiry into the wrongful detention of Australian citizens overseas. The government has yet to respond to the inquiry.
3) Innovative models for multilateral rapid responses to hostage crises
Several contributors to the journal have proposed new ideas for how states can do this, including former Canadian Justice Minister and Attorney General Irwin Cotler (with international human rights lawyer Brandon Silver) and former hostage Michael Kovrig (with international security and diplomacy expert Vina Nadjibulla).
Their recommendations include:
- developing rapid-response mechanisms to hostage-taking in pre-existing multilateral groupings, such as the G7 or NATO
- strengthening the Declaration on Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations (launched by Canada and now supported by more than 80 nations)
- imposing multilateral sanctions and other tools of economic leverage against states that engage in hostage-taking.
4) Greater investment in post-detention recovery care for both victims and families
Proposals for taking better care of former detainees came from the NGO Hostage International , human rights lawyer Sarah Teich and an Israeli team involved in designing reintegration programs for Gaza hostages.
These proposals include:
- passing legislation to mandate a "duty of care" by governments to former hostages
- developing new strategies for helping former hostages overcome their psychological challenges, based on emerging research in the field.
Learning from specific cases
It's also important we learn from the recent incidents of hostage-taking around the world. These need to be viewed as a global problem, not a series of separate incidents to be managed in isolation by governments.
For instance, in an innovative study on Israeli public opinion in the wake of the mass hostage-taking by Hamas and other armed groups on October 7, 2023, our contributors found that feelings of connectedness to hostage families had an impact on how the public perceived hostage deal-making. This emphasises the importance of family advocacy in cases like these.
Russia's approach differs from that of other hostage-taking states as it appears to be primarily used to target Americans. As such, it should be viewed as a feature of the bilateral relationship.
A way forward
If the world wants to do something about hostage diplomacy, we need to brainstorm, exchange ideas and test solutions, no matter how radical.
What has emerged from our research is that hostage diplomacy is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to identify and even harder to deter and prevent.
This is where scholars and practitioners can play an important role. They are the ones who can gather data, identify trends and focus the attention of policymakers trying to tackle this growing international issue.
