Hostage International shares insights into hostage diplomacy in academic paper

In January 2026, Lara Symons, our CEO contributed to the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism feeding in from our perspective as the longest-established charity supporting families and former hostages.

In it she shares our first-hand experience as a charity working internationally in this field for more than 20 years, highlighting the complexities and suffering that families and detainees experience, as well as some of the challenges faced by governments and what could be done to help minimise the impact on families and former hostages. It also highlights the gaps that we fill at Hostage International to ensure that those affected by hostage situations can receive long-term and appropriate support.

The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published by Taylor & Francis in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism – 28 Jan 2026 – Voices from the field: hostage international addressing the human impact of hostage diplomacy, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, DOI: 10.1080/18335330.2026.2622649. To link to this article: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/5FFTEGQYBSGHBI9BGENS/full?target=10.1080/18335330.2026.2622649

 

Addressing the human impact of hostage diplomacy

 Abstract

Hostage diplomacy is a growing phenomenon. In recent years, an increasing number of state actors are detaining foreign nationals to exert political or economic pressure on other governments. Against this backdrop and the work being undertaken to respond to and deter the practice, the devastating impact on families and arbitrary detainees cannot be underestimated.

This paper shares Hostage International’s first-hand perspective as a civil society actor and the longest-established international charity supporting families and former hostages. With more than 20 years of experience, the organisation has developed a solid understanding of the suffering that families and detainees experience in hostage situations; the psychological, financial and practical repercussions are significant and often long-term. This paper highlights the immediate and lasting impacts on wrongful detainees and their families, notes the important role of civil societies and suggests ways governments can improve engagement with, and support for, their citizens as they navigate the challenges these cases present.

 

Introduction

International travel is increasingly overshadowed by the threat of state-led hostage diplomacy (Solace Global 2025), where foreign nationals – including dual nationals – are detained, not for committing a crime, but as tools of international negotiation. A handful of countries have used hostage diplomacy as a successful form of diplomatic leverage for many years, and now others are joining in. While westerners have been targeted by some regimes, no national is immune. Most people travelling outside of their home country are unaware of the practice, but if they are, they almost never contemplate that it could happen to them. This exacerbates the sense of shock and disbelief by the detained person and their family.

A wrongfully detained person nearly always relies on their own government to lead efforts to bring them home. Nonetheless, many governments have limited experience in resolution and some lack established roles or protocols to provide effective support to affected citizens. This support gap adds to the emotional distress typically experienced by hostages and their loved ones.

Here, I share learnings from years of providing support to families of hostages and wrongful detainees and to former hostages after they return home. I look at the impact on individuals and what they need from their own government and from civil society. I also highlight some challenges for governments, as well as suggested improvements, around support for wrongful detainees and their families, including the categorisation and declaration of wrongful detentions, communication with families, and post-release support. [1]

 

The impact of arbitrary detention on hostages

Most individuals do not contemplate the possibility of abruptly losing their freedom and contact with the outside world in their daily or working lives. Even if someone has been informed of the risks of arbitrary detention in a specific location, the lack of understanding of what this is in practice, and the confidence that they are not committing any offence, creates a sense of disbelief around the possibility of losing one’s freedom. The disbelief, injustice, shock and fear that accompanies an arbitrary detention can trigger psychological trauma, which starts the moment an abduction or detention occurs and is not necessarily correlated with the length of captivity.

From the outset, many hostages report harbouring a deep-seated fear that they will not see their loved ones again. That fear adds to the psychological trauma and torment that may have been initiated by the detention. It is common for the detainee to have little or no direct contact with their loved ones, and no knowledge of what is being done to try to gain their freedom. This lack of information and contact typically leaves the detainee in a state of despair, helplessness and hopelessness which further compounds the trauma and torment they experience.

Detainees often have expectations that certain laws, national or international, will be adhered to. When this does not happen, a sense of confusion, gaslighting and mental torment sets in. This is heightened by the common practice of detaining states denying consular access to wrongful detainees. Most people who are detained outside their home country will ask for a consular visit from their government and will expect that request to be respected in accordance with international law. When it is not, they realise they have no protection from the human rights violations they may already have been experiencing and, like hostages of a non-state criminal or terrorist group, they harbour genuine fears about their future treatment and survival. These fears are often well founded given that many victims of state hostage-taking experience torture, mock executions, starvation and sexual assault. A small number have been executed.

The denial of consular visits has a signifcant impact on both the hostage and the family, not least because it is often one of the only ways hostages can get information out to their families, and receive messages back. The practice of denying consular access varies across cases and across countries. Dual nationals, who have citizenship of the detaining state as well as a foreign state, are least likely to receive consular visits. Iran, for example, does not recognise dual nationality, so does not grant consular visits to any national who also holds Iranian citizenship. They grant consular visits on an irregular and often infrequent basis where the detainee holds a foreign nationality only. Access is even more restricted in Venezuela, where more than 50 foreign nationals were being arbitrarily detained in 2025. In the first six months of 2025, Hostage International was not aware that the Venezuelan authorities granted consular access to any foreign government to see or speak to their detained citizens, whether they were dual nationals or not. Overall, in approximately 80% of the cases in which Hostage International provides support, consular access has either been non-existent or very irregular.

Wrongful detentions may be accompanied by an apparent legal process. The charges are often highly political or related to national security and have correspondingly severe sentences, including the death sentence. Faced with such charges – often without any independent or effective legal representation – state hostages typically experience anger, torment, humiliation, fear and desperation. The legal process can take many months, sometimes years, leading to the detainee’s early realisation that the detention may persist indefinitely even if their home government strongly intervenes.

Many detainees are held in solitary confinement for lengthy periods, in cells with noise and lights on 24/7, and without proper facilities. They may have no distractions, with limited opportunities to read, write, exercise or even speak. Even if these conditions change over time, the damage inflicted by any period in these harsh circumstances is significant. Upon release, after the initial euphoria, many former hostages struggle to move on with their lives and need expert support to reintegrate with their families and society more generally. Healing can take many years and not all former hostages seek or receive psychological support. At Hostage International, we have seen a 100% increase in the demand for psychological support from former state hostages since 2020. Currently, more than 90% of former state hostages who approach the charity for assistance seek trauma therapy. However, we estimate that around 25% of former hostages in western countries do not seek any psychological help in the first year following their release. About half of those may go on to seek help at a later stage. The effects of trauma, which can manifest in feelings of anxiety, depression, irritability, insomnia, memory loss or panic attacks, to name a few, can be delayed and can be triggered at any point following the end of the trauma. In addition, the lack of any justice mechanisms for most former state hostages perpetuates the deep-seated feelings of shame and humiliation created by the arbitrary detention. This hampers their ability to regain a sense of trust and safety that most people take for granted and which underpins general wellbeing.

 

The impact of arbitrary detentions on families and loved ones

Families are as much victims of hostage-taking as the hostages. They also experience disbelief, shock, uncertainty, helplessness and fear. They often wrongly anticipate an easy solution when they know their loved one has committed no obvious offence. Their incredulity at the detention is compounded by the fact their own government appears limited in what it can do, particularly in the early stages, before the detaining state decides to engage with them. At Hostage International, we see an almost universal expectation by families that one’s own government can obtain an early release based on the detaining state’s infringement of international law. Their frustration when this does not happen is matched by their fears for their loved one’s welfare, especially where there is no consular access. Sadly, at Hostage International, we have not seen any government consistently able to obtain their citizens’ early release through specific intervention.

In the longer term, some states have had more success in negotiating release, partly because they are more willing to make concessions, such as undertaking prisoner swaps, but it is the detaining state which determines the timing and with which state to negotiate first. Where families observe other nationals being released before their loved one, such as the US nationals freed from Venezuelan detention in the first seven months of 2025, their frustration with their own government increases. The fact remains that governments can only negotiate a release of their national when the detaining state decides they want something from them or can use the hostage as leverage in some other way. Regardless, for families, there is a common feeling that their own government is not doing enough.

Alongside pressing their own government for action, families must resolve numerous administrative issues in the hostage’s absence, such as those involving banking, insurance and housing, and they may need to liaise with their loved one’s employers. Few people who are arbitrarily detained have set up a power of attorney in advance. Without a power of attorney, families struggle to manage even something as simple as stopping direct debits for services no longer being used. Where consular visits happen, most detaining states do not allow hostages to sign legal documents while in their custody, so it is rarely possible to obtain a power of attorney from them at this stage. Families have to find other ways to manage their loved one’s affairs. Hostage International works with pro bono lawyers and the home government to help families work through these issues.

The unusual, sensitive and little understood circumstances of these cases mean families often feel isolated and may withdraw from their social circles and local communities. Conversely, and sometimes simultaneously, families may also have to cope with media attention. This may be unwanted media intrusion, or they may decide to plan media engagement in a bid to highlight their loved one’s plight and to campaign for release. At Hostage International, we see 95% of all families we support grapple with the media question; the uncertainty about whether it is the right thing to do can be a source of additional torment. There is no easy answer as every case is different and even in a single case, media might be helpful at one stage, but be detrimental at another. Families rarely have enough information to make an informed decision and they are often faced with competing views from government, friends or advisers.

When a hostage comes home, families may struggle to return to life as it was before. While hugely relieved to have their loved one back, it is not atypical for family members to feel a strange sense of loss of purpose and exhibit signs of depression. It can take months for their anxiety levels to decrease, and some may struggle to connect with the former hostage. At Hostage International, we have seen some former hostages and their families struggle to communicate about what happened, leading to feelings of loneliness and resentment. To help them navigate some of these post-release difficulties, Hostage International offers a tailored family mediation service.

In the rare cases where the hostage dies or is executed, the family live with the loss and guilt that not enough was done to bring them safely home. Their anger and grief are sometimes insurmountable and the impact is for life.

 

The role of civil society organisations in minimising the impact on families and former hostages

Alongside the increase in wrongful detentions, there has been a surge in civil society actors working in specific areas to support families, former and current hostages. Many organisations have been set up by former hostages or family members with the mandate to provide preventative or preparatory advice, campaign for the release of hostages, or to advocate for policy changes, and are often based or working within specific geographic locations.

Hostage International has responded to the growth in arbitrary detention by developing its breadth of support for families in live incidents and for both former hostages and their families in the post-release journey. It is not involved in the resolution of incidents; it assists by helping people cope with the day-to-day difficulties, not only on an emotional and practical level, but in addressing the lack of information and the need to engage with various stakeholders, such as governments, employers, lawyers and the media.

Many cases supported by Hostage International have been designated arbitrary detentions by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Hostage International’s work focuses on the sub-set of arbitrary detentions referred to as hostage diplomacy cases, though some fall outside of this category. It has helped individuals affected by these cases who have been detained in the countries highlighted in Figure 1:

In mid-2025, Hostage International was supporting 100 individuals (of whom half were former hostages). Female members of hostage’s families (partners, mothers and sisters) comprise more than 80% of family members seeking our support, while approximately 60% of former hostages asking for our help are men, reflecting the fact more men are arbitrarily detained than women. Feedback from families and former hostages suggests that civil society plays an important role in helping individuals affected by hostage diplomacy cope with their severe distress and desire for independent or impartial expertise. Families in particular have an overwhelming desire for information and guidance, to help them understand and rationalise what is happening. While governments may be able to provide this, their knowledge is often based on the details of their own cases, and in-house experience is often lost through the typical pattern of post rotations. Some families also believe their govenrments are withholding knowledge or information, or feel their government’s guidance is dictated by their own agenda. Hostage International aims to fill the information gap, while also providing practical day-to-day support.

Challenges for home governments

Hostage diplomacy places enormous pressure on governments, forcing them to consider sometimes contradictory requirements in international and domestic law when determining their response, and to juggle competing priorities. The resolution of these cases is highly sensitive, and negotiations and diplomacy cannot often begin until the detaining state’s legal process, however flawed, has run its course.

In Hostage International’s experience, government processes are often unclear and confusing to families. For example, families may not understand the categorisation of cases, which part of their government they are in contact with, the role of the ambassador to the detaining country, nor whether their government has any input on the selection of lawyers or translators. The lack of understanding of foreign policy responses and procedures for managing cases can be deeply distressing and frustrating for families and detainees alike.

The principle of non-intervention in international law (United Nations 1970) requires governments not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs, including their law enforcement and judicial systems. In a wrongful detention, this principle encourages governments to acknowledge that the detaining state may have grounds for the detention, and time must be allowed for those grounds to be stated and for the domestic legal process to proceed. The subsequent delay in categorising or declaring cases as wrongful detentions (which may be compounded by a home government’s lack of any clear designation process) is extremely difficult for the detainee and their family to endure, especially when the detainee is exposed to human rights violations during that time. Hostage International is aware of very few cases where the detainee has been released before a legal process has started (with the exception of detainees in Venezuela, where in many cases no formal legal process has been pursued). In the few cases in Iran where we know the arrest did not progress to full-blown detention and charges, there does not appear to be anything the home government specifically did differently, though in all cases the home government kept a low profile and did not designate the case as a wrongful detention.

Where the right to consular access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (United Nations 1963) is being denied by the detaining state and there is suspicion of a breach of the detainee’s human rights, a more robust and swift response by the detainee’s home government is warranted, particularly in designating the detention as wrongful. However, few governments have clear processes or criteria for making such a designation.

The ‘Levinson Act’ (US Congress 2020) is an example of how governments can be more systematic, swift and transparent in categorising a particular case. While not without shortcomings, the Act’s criteria provide greater clarity and reassurance to the detainee and their family than the seemingly ad hoc, inconsistent and largely opaque categorisation practices of other governments. Detainees who are wrongfully detained know that they are innocent and being held in contravention of human rights laws and as part of a political strategy of the detaining state, but the slow and invisible processes of their home government often mean they feel they are subjected to a degree of gaslighting, where their innocence appears to be questioned. Of course, in some cases it is possible that they may have unknowingly committed an offence under local laws, such as photographing a military building or purchasing alcohol, and this has to be checked by their government. However, from the hostage’s perspective, the delay and lack of acknowledgement of their position by their own government often exacerbates their sense of shame and humiliation, which can have long-term mental health repercussions.

 

The role of home governments in minimising the impact on families and former hostages

Families look to their home government to understand the complexities of these cases, which usually fall well outside their personal experience, but too often the allocated desk officer or family’s government point of contact may be lacking experience or knowledge, which undermines the family’s confidence in their government’s ability to help solve the crisis.

The frequent rotation of government department personnel can leave a void in knowledge about these cases, including at the more senior level, with inexperienced case officers overseen by civil servants who fall back on quoting government policy lines to fill the conversation with families. Without understanding the impact on families and without the credibility that comes with in-depth knowledge of wrongful detention cases, coupled with restrictions on what they can share, government communications with families can become repetitive and hollow. This often leads to a sense that there is little action, with government personnel repeating the same phrase at every meeting: ‘we are doing everything we can’. Families often feel frustrated and angry with their government’s approach, which adds to the distress and hopelessness that they are living with daily. In some cases, the resentment harboured towards their own government lingers for years afterwards.

Where governments allocate a senior official with experience or knowledge of arbitrary detention, and with responsibility and authority to lead on cases, families feel more reassured and better informed by their government, and subsequently less confused and alone. Choosing the right personality to fulfil this government role is important. The senior official must have the ability to build trusting rapport with families and show empathy and kindness. The appointment of a Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs (SPEHA) in the US in 2015 is an example of how this senior official role can improve the family’s experience of engagement with their government. In 2024, Canada appointed a Senior Official for Hostage Affairs and in 2025, both Australia and the UK were exploring similar roles.

Hostage International aims to foster better relations between families and their governments. Our caseworkers attend some government meetings with families (at their request) and help them to ask questions, understand the government approach, and also the government’s challenges. We also deliver training to governments in best practice in family engagement, highlighting the needs of families in these cases. Ultimately, families cope better during a crisis and post-incident when their government has regular, open, informative and credible engagement with them.

 

Media complexities

Engaging with the media may help families feel empowered, particularly when they feel their government is not doing enough. Hostage International recognises that there are some risks to media coverage, including public-facing social media, and that the focus and timing of any media engagement needs to be carefully considered. While difficult to verify, there could be times when it might have some benefits (such as improved prison conditions) or at least be benign, and other times when it could have a negative impact on the hostage’s treatment or the pace of negotiations.

Leading on resolution, home governments are usually best placed to make a judgement about the timing and utility of media engagements, but too often take a blanket approach, declaring any media to be high-risk and best avoided. This approach means families feel that the government is placing its own reputation above the needs of their loved one. While reputation may occasionally be a factor, governments are also aware of the risk of increasing the wrongful detainee’s value and prolonging their captivity. There may also be sensitivities they cannot share with families about why media coverage would be unwise. Some families end up going to the media without further discussion with their government, and the relationship suffers. Where governments have open and supportive discussions with families about media engagement, even offering assistance from their own press offices, the risks of negative repercussions can be mitigated. Furthermore, media can potentially and occasionally be used to the government’s advantage when the timing is right. Hostage International has seen occasional examples of a joint family/government media approach working well, with the added bonus of leaving families feeling less angry and helpless.

 

Support for former hostages

A foreign ministry’s responsibility for their detained citizens usually ends once they are home, which often comes as a shock to hostages and their families, both of whom face significant challenges in the aftermath of an incident. Organisations like Hostage International exist to fill gaps in support, but there are initial steps governments could take during the transition from detention to release which would ease the suffering and sense of abandonment some feel. This would ideally include:

• Covering the cost of repatriation.
• Providing a medical examination prior to or immediately after repatriation.
• Enabling the presence of a trauma psychologist to accompany the hostage on their return journey where possible, and where not possible, enabling detainees immediately on return to be briefed by a specialist who can explain (and validate) the mixed emotions they are likely experiencing and how those emotions might play out in the coming weeks.
• Providing supporting letters and introductions to other government agencies that may help with administrative matters, including claiming government allowance or housing benefits, following a detainee’s return.
• Highlighting any avenues for compensation that might be available to the former hostage and their families.
• Signposting returning detainees for ongoing support in these areas, as well as for physical and mental health (including trauma counselling) to relevant organisations, such as Hostage International.

 

Conclusion

Hostage diplomacy continues to cause despair, hardship and lasting trauma for a growing number of people around the world. It also continues to pose significant challenges for governments. While much work is going on to determine how best to deter hostage diplomacy and address resolution, it is essential to remember that in every case, a loved one is being held in terrifying circumstances and their families are likely suffering daily strife and anxiety. The priority must be the timely release of the wrongful detainee, but the next most important aim is to reduce the suffering of the hostage and their family.

There are ways in which governments can help to reduce the trauma, hopelessness and anger of hostages and their loved ones. These feelings will almost always be harboured, but can be mitigated by governments putting in place the right processes and resources for family engagement and hostage care and rehabilitation. Civil society plays a critical role in filling any gaps in support, and some organisations, like Hostage International, are able to provide long-term care after a hostage-taking incident has ended.

Reference list

Solace Global (2025). Hostage Diplomacy in 2025: Detention Threat and Travel Risk Analysis. [online] Solace Global. Available at: https://www.solaceglobal.com/report/hostage-diplomacy/

United Nations (1970). Art 2(7) of the UN Charter; Friendly Relations Declarations UNGA res. 2625 (XXV) 1970 [online] Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-Eng.pdf.

United Nations (1963) Art. 36 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 [online] Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf.

US Congress (2020) D-NJ, R. S.712 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Robert Levinson Hostage Recovery and Hostage-Taking Accountability Act. [online] Congress.gov. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/712. 

Appendices:

Australian Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (2024). Wrongful detention of Australian citizens overseas. [online] Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/WrongfulDetention47.

Global Affairs Canada ( 2021). Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations. [online] GAC. Available at: https://www.international.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/arbitrary_detention-detention_arbitraire-declaration.aspx?lang=eng.

Parliament of the United Kingdom (2022). Stolen years: combatting state hostage diplomacy: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report – Foreign Affairs Committee. [online] Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmfaff/1596/report.html [Accessed 26 May 2025].

About Hostage International

Hostage International is an international charity with trained volunteer caseworkers based in multiple countries, including Australia, Canada, and across Europe, delivering support in these regions and beyond, in English and a growing number of languages including Dutch, French, Spanish, German, Portuguese, and Arabic. www.hostageinternational.org

[1] Many reflections included in this paper, have been fed into recommendations for government enquiries on hostage diplomacy in Australia (2024), Canada ( 2021) and the UK (2022) or to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (2024)

 

The Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism Terrorism: https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/rpic20