Hubbry Logo
HostageHostageMain
Open search
Hostage
Community hub
Hostage
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hostage
Hostage
Hostage
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Police trainees recovering a hostage during a training exercise
Part of a series on
Terrorism
By ideology
Special-interest / Single-issue
Related topics
Organizational structures
  • Methods
  • Tactics
Terrorist groups
Relationship to states
State terrorism
State-sponsored terrorism
Response to terrorism

A hostage is a person seized by an abductor in order to compel another party, one which places a high value on the liberty, well-being and safety of the person seized—such as a relative, employer, law enforcement, or government—to act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way, often under threat of serious physical harm or death to the hostage(s) after expiration of an ultimatum. The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition defines a hostage as "a person who is handed over by one of two belligerent parties to the other or seized as security for the carrying out of an agreement, or as a preventive measure against certain acts of war."[1]

A party who seizes one or more hostages is known as a hostage-taker; if the hostages are present voluntarily, then the receiver is known as a host.

(Video) Police demonstrate hostage response techniques in Japan

In civil society, along with kidnapping for ransom and human trafficking (often willing to ransom its captives when lucrative or to trade on influence), hostage taking is a criminal activity. In the military context, hostages are distinct from prisoners of war—despite prisoners being used as collateral in prisoner exchange—and hostage taking is regarded as a war crime.

Hostage taking and kidnapping are prone to blend together. When the goal is strictly financial, the primary lens is one of extortion, even in the face of a severe threat to the safety of the captive person if the financial negotiation fails; conversely, when the goal is political or geopolitical, the primary lens is terrorism.

When looking at hostage-taking from the primary lens of terrorism, there are reasons to believe that certain government types are more susceptible to hostage-taking terrorism than others. In democratic governments, for example, elements related to their democratic ideals such as freedom of the press, constraints on the executive, free elections, and higher levels of civil liberties create favorable outcomes that enable hostage-takers to target these countries specifically. Hostage-takers understand that by targeting democratic governments, they are more likely to seek concessions and/or negotiate with them based on the level of accountability they must face from their citizens who elect them into office, and the media within the country which reports on such events in a capacity independent from the state.[2]

Etymology

[edit]

The English word hostage derives from French ostage, modern otage, from Late Latin obsidaticum (Medieval Latin ostaticum, ostagium), the state of being an obses (plural obsides), 'hostage',[1] from Latin obsideō 'I haunt/frequent/blockade/besiege', but an etymological connection was later supposed with Latin hostis 'stranger', later 'enemy'.

Historical practices

[edit]

The long history of political and military use indicates that political authorities or generals would legally agree to hand over one or usually several hostages in the custody of the other side, as guarantee of good faith in the observance of obligations. These obligations would be in the form of signing of a peace treaty, in the hands of the victor, or even exchange hostages as mutual assurance in cases such as an armistice. Major powers, such as Ancient Rome[3] and European colonial powers would especially receive many such political hostages, often offspring of the elite, even princes or princesses who were generally treated according to their rank and put to a subtle long-term use where they would be given an elitist education or possibly even a religious conversion. This would eventually influence them culturally and open the way for an amicable political line if they ascended to power after release. Sometimes when a man from one nation was hostage in another nation, his position as hostage was more or less voluntary: for example the position of Æscferð son of Ecglāf, who was a Northumbrian hostage in Wessex; he fought under Byrhtnōð against Vikings in the Battle of Maldon on 10 August 991 AD (ref. lines 265 etseq), and probably died in battle there. In Greek, 'Ομηρος means "Homer" and also "hostage", a coincidence which is part of the debate over Homer's identity.

"Gislas" was an Old English word for "hostages", demonstrating that the practice was commonplace in England long before the word "hostage" was coined.

The Anglo-Saxon practice caused the element gīsl = "hostage" in many old Germanic personal names, such as Ēadgils, Cynegils, Gīslheard, and Gīslbeorht. This has been imported into placenames derived from personal names, for example Isleworth in west London (UK) from Old English Gīslheres wyrð (= "enclosure belonging to [a man called] Gīslhere").

"Hostages", 1896 painting by Jean-Paul Laurens, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lyon

The practice of taking hostages is very ancient, and has been used constantly in negotiations with conquered nations, and in cases such as surrenders, armistices and the like, where the two belligerents depended for its proper carrying out on each other's good faith. The Romans were accustomed to take the sons of tributary princes and educate them at Rome, thus holding a security for the continued loyalty of the conquered nation and also instilling a possible future ruler with ideas of Roman civilization.[1] The practice was also commonplace in the Imperial Chinese tributary system, especially between the Han and Tang dynasties.

The practice continued through the early Middle Ages. The Irish High King Niall of the Nine Hostages got his epithet Noígiallach because, by taking nine petty kings hostage, he had subjected nine other principalities to his power.

This practice was also adopted in the early period of company rule in India, and by France during the French colonization of North Africa. The position of a hostage was that of a prisoner of war, to be retained until the negotiations or treaty obligations were carried out, and liable to punishment (in ancient times), and even to death, in case of treachery or refusal to fulfil the promises made.[1]

The practice of taking hostages as security for the carrying out of a treaty between civilized states is now obsolete. The last occasion was at the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), ending the War of the Austrian Succession, when two British peers, Henry Bowes Howard, 11th Earl of Suffolk, and Charles, 9th Baron Cathcart, were sent to France as hostages for the restitution of Cape Breton to France.[1]

In France, after the revolution of Prairial (June 18, 1799), the so-called law of hostages was passed, to meet the royalist insurrection in La Vendée. Relatives of émigrés were taken from disturbed districts and imprisoned, and were liable to execution at any attempt to escape. Sequestration of their property and deportation from France followed on the murder of a republican, four to every such murder, with heavy fines on the whole body of hostages. The law only resulted in an increase in the insurrection. In 1796 Napoleon had used similar measures to deal with the insurrection in Lombardy.[4][1]

In later times the practice of official war hostages may be said to be confined to either securing the payment of enforced contributions or requisitions in an occupied territory and the obedience to regulations the occupying army may think fit to issue; or as a precautionary measure, to prevent illegitimate acts of war or violence by persons not members of the recognized military forces of the enemy.[1]

German announcement of the execution of 100 Polish hostages as revenge for death of 2 Germans in Warsaw, occupied Poland, February 1944

During the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Germans took as hostages the prominent people or officials from towns or districts when making requisitions and also when foraging, and it was a general practice for the mayor and adjoint of a town which failed to pay a fine imposed upon it to be seized as hostages and retained until the money was paid. Another case where hostages have been taken in modern warfare has been the subject of much discussion. In 1870 the Germans found it necessary to take special measures to put a stop to train-wrecking by "Francs-tireurs" - i.e. "parties in occupied territory not belonging to the recognized armed forces of the enemy", which was considered an illegitimate act of war. Prominent citizens were placed on the engine of the train so that it might be understood that in every accident caused by the hostility of the inhabitants their compatriots will be the first to suffer. The measure seems to have been effective. In 1900 during the Second Boer War, by a proclamation issued at Pretoria (June 19), Lord Roberts adopted the plan for a similar reason, but shortly afterwards (July 29) it was abandoned.[5][1]

The Germans also, between the surrender of a town and its final occupation, took hostages as security against outbreaks of violence by the inhabitants.[1]

Most writers on international law have regarded this method of preventing such acts of hostility as unjustifiable, on the ground that the persons taken as hostages are not the persons responsible for the act; that, as by the usage of war hostages are to be treated strictly as prisoners of war, such an exposure to danger is transgressing the rights of a belligerent; and as useless, for the mere temporary removal of important citizens until the end of a war cannot be a deterrent unless their mere removal deprives the combatants of persons necessary to the continuance of the acts aimed at.[6] On the other hand, it has been urged[7] that the acts, the prevention of which is aimed at, are not legitimate acts on the part of the armed forces of the enemy, but illegitimate acts by private persons, who, if caught, could be quite lawfully punished, and that a precautionary and preventive measure is more reasonable than reprisals. It may be noticed, however, that the hostages would suffer should the acts aimed at be performed by the authorized belligerent forces of the enemy.[1]

A British armoured railway wagon behind a railcar on which two Arab hostages are seated, Palestine Mandate, 1936
Belgian soldier in front of dead hostages, November 1964 in Stanleyville, Congo. Belgian paratroopers freed over 1,800 European hostages held by Congolese rebels during the Congo Crisis.

Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare provides that: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible." The regulations, however do not allude to the practice of taking hostage.[1]

In May 1871, at the close of the Paris Commune, took place the massacre of the so-called hostages. Strictly they were not hostages, for they had not been handed over or seized as security for the performance of any undertaking or as a preventive measure, but merely in retaliation for the death of their leaders E. V. Duval and Gustave Flourens. The massacre occurred after the defeat at Mont Valrien on the 4 April and the entry of the army into Paris on the 21 May. Among the 52 victims who were shot in batches the most noticeable were Georges Darboy, archbishop of Paris, the Abbé Deguery, curé of the Madeleine, and the president of the Court of Cassation, Louis Bernard Bonjean.[1][8]

Legality of hostage-taking

[edit]

Taking hostages in modern terms is considered a crime or an act of terrorism; the use of the word in this sense of abductee became current only in the 1970s. The criminal activity is known as kidnapping. An acute situation where hostages are kept in a building or a vehicle that has been taken over by armed terrorists or common criminals is often called a hostage crisis.

Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that the taking of hostages during an internal conflict is a war crime and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever. In international conflicts, Articles 34 and 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention state that using protected civilians as hostages is a grave breach of the convention. These conventions are supplemented by Article 75(2)(c) of Additional Protocol I in international conflicts and Article 4(2)(c) of Additional Protocol II in internal conflicts.[9]

The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages—which prohibits hostage-taking and mandates the punishment of hostage-takers—was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. The treaty came into force in 1983 and has been ratified by all but 24 of the member states of the United Nations.

Hostage-taking is still often politically motivated or intended to raise a ransom or to enforce an exchange against other hostages or even condemned convicts. However, in some countries hostage-taking for profit has become an "industry", ransom often being the only demand.

Hostage taking within diplomacy

[edit]
See also: Hostage diplomacy

Hostage-taking in the United States

[edit]

Hostage Taking Act

[edit]

The United States makes hostage-taking a federal criminal offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1203. Generally, the Act applies to conduct occurring within the territory of the United States. However, under Subsection B, an offender may be indicted under the Act even if the hostage-taking occurred outside the territory of the United States if the "offender or the person seized or detained is a national of the United States; the offender is found in the United States; or the governmental organization sought to be compelled is the Government of the United States."[10] These provisions are consistent with the fundamental principles of international criminal law, specifically active nationality principle, universal principle, and the effects principle, respectively.[11]

18 USC 1203: Hostage Taking Act

[edit]
Hostage Rescue Team agents

Title 18 of the United States Code criminalizes hostage-taking under "18 USC 1203: Hostage Taking Act", which reads:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

(b)(1) It is not an offense under this section if the conduct required for the offense occurred outside the United States unless—

(A) the offender or the person seized or detained is a national of the United States;
(B) the offender is found in the United States; or
(C) the governmental organization sought to be compelled is the Government of the United States.
(2) It is not an offense under this section if the conduct required for the offense occurred inside the United States, each alleged offender and each person seized or detained are nationals of the United States, and each alleged offender is found in the United States, unless the governmental organization sought to be compelled is the Government of the United States.

(c) As used in this section, the term "national of the United States" has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(22)).[12]

The Hostage Taking Act is a subsection of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. It became enforceable in the United States January 6, 1985.[12]

Ransom payment strategies

[edit]

The United States has had an official policy of "we do not negotiate with terrorists" since the Nixon Administration. This applies to designated international terrorist groups, but not domestic kidnappers, foreign governments, or international organized crime. The United Kingdom has a similar policy, but many continental European countries, including France and Spain, routinely pay ransom.

The former head of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Joel Simon, found that evidence suggests this policy has reduced the number of Americans who survive kidnapping but has not reduced the number who are kidnapped in the first place. Spain retrieves all of its hostages with a policy of paying ransoms, but in the United States only about one quarter survive. Simon says that terrorists exploit these policy differences by making money from countries who do pay ransom, and using those that do not pay ransom to demonstrate their willingness to kill hostages and thus raise ransom prices and public pressure to pay. In the absence of a universal refusal to pay, which would eliminate any incentive for kidnapping, Simon says the best way to reduce kidnappings and prevent the use of ransom funds to fund other harmful activities is to pay ransom, free the hostages and then use the information gleaned from the negotiation and handoff to destroy the group responsible.[13]

Notable hostages crises

[edit]
Main article: List of hostage crises
Empty strollers symbolize the children abducted, displayed at a demonstration demanding the return of Israelis held by Hamas in Gaza in Tel Aviv in 2023.

Several hostage crises have stood out in history due to their impact, duration, and the international attention they garnered. Some notable crises include:

  • The Munich massacre (1972) - During the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, West Germany, a Palestinian terrorist group known as Black September took eleven Israeli Olympic team members hostage and killed them along with a West German police officer.
  • The Norrmalmstorg robbery (23-28 August 1973) - Four bank employees and civilians were taken hostages by Jan-Erik Olsson in kreditbanken while he was in parole, two police officers were injured while trying to communicate with the robber. It is best known as the origin of the term Stockholm syndrome.
  • The Iranian Embassy Siege (1980) - A group of six armed men stormed the Iranian Embassy on Prince's Gate in South Kensington, London. The gunmen, Iranian Arabs, took 26 people hostage, including embassy staff, several visitors and a Metropolitan Police officer. The crisis ended with the Special Air Service (SAS) storming the building, killing 5 of the 6 gunmen.
  • The Air France Flight 8969 (Operation rock climber) Hijack (1994) was a plane hijack that lasted 3 days. GIA Terrorists who dressed up as officers hijacked the Air flight, their motivation was to release their prisoners in Algeria and potentially crash the plane to the eiffel tower. The GIGN stormed the plane neutralizing all but one of the terrorists. The Operation was a success.
  • The Iran hostage crisis (1979-1981) - Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days. The crisis ended with the hostages' release, minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the U.S. president.
  • The Japanese embassy hostage crisis(1996-1997) - Members of a revolutionary movement in Peru took hundreds of hostages at the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima. The siege lasted 126 days and ended with a government raid, which resulted in the deaths of all the insurgents and one hostage.
  • The Moscow theater hostage crisis (2002) - Chechen terrorists took 850 hostages during a performance at the Dubrovka Theater. Russian forces pumped narcotic gas into the building before storming it, which led to the deaths of at least 170 people, including 130 hostages.
  • The Beslan school siege (2004) - Over 1,100 people were taken hostage, including 777 children, after armed Chechen separatists seized a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, Russia. The crisis lasted three days and ended with over 330 deaths, including 186 children.
  • The In Amenas hostage crisis (2013) - An al-Qaeda affiliated group took over 800 people hostage at the Tigantourine gas facility in In Amenas, Algeria. The Algerian army's intervention resulted in at least 39 foreign hostages killed along with 29 militants.
  • The Gaza war hostage crisis (2023-) - 251 Israeli civilians and soldiers, dual citizens, and foreign nationals were taken as hostages by Hamas to the Gaza Strip, of which the number of kidnapped children was about 30. As of February 23, 62 remain in captivity.[14][15][16][needs update]

Notable hostages

[edit]

Pre-1900

[edit]

1900 - present

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hostage

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A hostage is a person who is seized or detained, with threats to kill, injure, or continue the detention, in order to compel a third person, group, or governmental authority to perform or abstain from performing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage. This distinguishes hostage-taking from mere kidnapping, where the primary aim is personal gain rather than coercion of an external party.
Historically, hostages served as security for agreements, with ancient civilizations exchanging them to guarantee treaty compliance or prevent renewed hostilities, a practice evident in Greco-Roman and medieval diplomacy where noble offspring were often pledged. In wartime contexts, such as under the laws of armed conflict, retaining hostages as leverage has long been recognized as impermissible, evolving into a categorical prohibition.
Under modern international humanitarian and criminal law, hostage-taking constitutes a grave breach and war crime, irrespective of whether perpetrated by state actors or non-state groups, with treaties like the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages mandating universal jurisdiction and severe penalties. Contemporary incidents frequently involve terrorist organizations or criminal syndicates employing the tactic to extract ransoms, political concessions, or media attention, often necessitating specialized negotiation strategies or high-risk rescue operations by trained units. The psychological toll on hostages, including prolonged uncertainty and trauma, underscores the tactic's reliance on fear as a coercive mechanism, while empirical analyses of resolutions highlight that negotiated releases outnumber successful assaults, though outcomes vary by context and perpetrator rationality.

Definition and Terminology

Definition

A hostage is a person seized or detained by one party, who threatens to harm, injure, kill, or continue detaining the individual unless a third party—such as a government, organization, or another person—complies with specific demands, such as payment of ransom, release of prisoners, or policy changes. This distinguishes hostage-taking from mere kidnapping, where the primary motive may involve direct personal gain without explicit compulsion of an external actor, though the practices often overlap in criminal contexts. Under , hostage-taking constitutes a distinct offense, defined in instruments like the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages as any seizure or detention accompanied by threats aimed at compelling action or inaction by a third party or state, irrespective of the victim's or . In armed conflicts, it violates prohibitions in the , where retaining civilians or others as hostages for coercive purposes is forbidden, emphasizing that even retention without explicit threats can qualify if intended to guarantee compliance. The act is classified as a war crime under the when occurring in international or non-international armed conflicts. Historically and in diplomatic usage, hostages have served as pledges of , such as family members exchanged to ensure treaty adherence, evolving into the coercive modern form prevalent since the , particularly in and insurgencies. Dictionaries reinforce this as a person held as security for fulfilling conditions, underscoring the relational dynamic between captor, hostage, and compelled party. The English term "hostage" entered the language in the late 13th century, borrowed from ostage or hostage, denoting a given as or a pledge to the fulfillment of an agreement. This form derives from obsidaticum, referring to the state of being a hostage, ultimately tracing to Latin obses ("hostage" or "pledge"), a compound of ob- ("before" or "in front of") and sedēre ("to sit"), implying one who "sits" as before another party. Early usages in , appearing around 1290, retained this sense of custodial rather than outright , often linked to concepts of or temporary residence under , as reflected in Anglo-French influences on legal . Related concepts historically intertwine "hostage" with pledge and surety, where a hostage served as personal collateral for contractual obligations, such as treaty compliance or debt repayment, predating written records in practices like those in ancient Mesopotamian codes. In Roman and Greco-Roman systems, hostages functioned under unilateral exaction or exchange as sureties for alliances, with their status tied to the principal party's adherence to terms, distinct from slaves or prisoners of war who lacked reciprocal guarantees. Medieval English law extended this to "hostageship," a condition where individuals were held as surety for pledges like court appearances post-release from jail, emphasizing enforceability over punishment. Over time, the term diverged from voluntary or diplomatic suretyship toward coerced detention, though core elements of leverage persist; for instance, early Irish Brehon law treated hostages as inter-territorial bonds, akin to modern but with familial or noble substitution allowed for fidelity. This contrasts with unrelated concepts like prisoner, which implies penal confinement without pledged release conditions, or detainee, a broader administrative hold lacking the explicit security intent of hostageship.

Historical Practices

Ancient and Pre-Modern Instances

In ancient Near Eastern societies, such as those in , hostages served as pledges to secure treaties and ensure payments between city-states and empires, a practice evidenced in records from the third millennium BCE onward. For instance, Assyrian kings like (r. 1114–1076 BCE) demanded hostages from rulers to guarantee loyalty and prevent rebellion, often executing them if obligations were breached. This mechanism relied on the high value placed on noble kin, leveraging familial ties for coercive compliance without immediate military action. In , hostages (homēroi) were exchanged during interstate negotiations and truces, as depicted in Homeric epics and historical accounts; the describes mutual hostage exchanges between Achaeans and Trojans to enforce ceasefires around 1200 BCE in legendary tradition. records their use in the (431–404 BCE), where Athenian demands for hostages from allies underscored their role in binding alliances amid fragile peaces. Hostages were typically elite males, housed under supervision but not always harshly treated, reflecting a cultural emphasis on honor and reciprocity in . The and Empire systematized hostage-taking (obsides) as a cornerstone of , extracting them from defeated or client kings to enforce , military aid, and fidelity; by the second century BCE, over 100 hostages from Hellenistic kingdoms resided in annually. , a Greek statesman in from 167 BCE, exemplified integration, receiving education and influencing while subtly promoting Roman interests among elites. Celtic tribes, such as the Suebi under in 58 BCE, surrendered noble sons as hostages to , who used them to romanize provincial leaders and deter uprisings; failure to comply often led to execution, as with Vercingetorix's allies post-Alesia in 52 BCE. This practice persisted into the imperial era, with emperors like hosting Parthian princes to symbolize dominance without conquest. In pre-modern Europe, particularly Anglo-Saxon England (c. 500–1066 CE), hostages (gislas) were demanded by Viking raiders to secure danegeld payments and oaths of loyalty, as chronicled in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; in 851 CE, Æthelwulf of Wessex exchanged hostages with Danes to avert invasion, though many were later slain when tribute lagged. By 994 CE, King Æthelred II handed over hostages including Archbishop Ælfheah's kin to Olaf Tryggvason and Sweyn Forkbeard after their London siege, only for the Vikings to massacre them in 1002 CE at Greenwich amid renewed hostilities, highlighting the precarious causality where broken pacts triggered reprisals. Such instances underscore hostages' dual role as diplomatic tools and sacrificial leverage, with survival tied to the host's strategic patience rather than inherent rights.

Medieval to Early Modern Developments

![Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry depicting the giving of hostages]float-right In medieval , hostages functioned primarily as voluntary guarantors of agreements, provided by one party to another to ensure compliance with terms such as treaties, truces, oaths of , or payment of fines, rather than being forcibly seized as in modern conceptions. This practice stemmed from feudal structures where personal bonds and honor underpinned political stability, with hostages—often nobles, relatives, or children—subject to forfeiture, including execution, if the agreement was breached. For instance, following Viking raids, Frankish rulers exacted hostages from defeated groups to secure peace and facilitate conversions, blending diplomatic with goals in the early medieval period. By the , from the late onward, hostageship evolved toward a more monetized form, increasingly involving the "mortgaging" of children or kin to secure debts, bribes, or territorial concessions, reflecting economic pressures on amid growing commercial influences. Specific cases illustrate this: in 1209, Scottish princesses and Isabella, sisters of King Alexander II, were delivered to as hostages to guarantee a after their father's conflicts with King John. Similarly, during the Second Barons' War in (1264–1267), the young Prince (later Edward I) was held as a hostage by Simon de Montfort to bind King Henry III to the , though Edward escaped in 1265 by negotiating with his captor. in political marriages also served as hostages to enforce alliances or neutrality pledges, as seen in various continental examples where female kin secured property rights or loyalty to monarchs. In late medieval contexts, such as 14th–15th century and , hostages reinforced interstate treaties and internal feudal pacts, often involving noble youths exchanged to avert wars or seal dynastic unions, with treatment varying from honorable guest status to punitive detention based on the host's interests. Transitioning into the early (c. 1500–1700), the practice persisted in peripheral or asymmetric conflicts, such as Ottoman-European diplomacy where Christian princes' sons were sent to the as guarantees against rebellion, though centralized absolutist states began favoring written treaties and resident ambassadors over personal sureties, diminishing hostages' prevalence amid rising norms. This shift aligned with broader causal changes, including warfare reducing feudal levies and the enabling verifiable contracts, yet hostages remained a tool in colonial ventures and religious strife, like the exchange of kin in Huguenot conflicts.

19th Century Shifts Toward Modern Forms

In the , the practice of taking hostages as voluntary surety for interstate treaties largely faded among European powers, rendered obsolete by evolving norms of equality and formalized , with the last notable instances occurring in the early . However, hostage-taking persisted and adapted in imperial and frontier conflicts, particularly in against non-state actors or resistant populations, shifting toward coercive detention of non-elites to enforce compliance rather than mutual pledges of . This evolution reflected the expansion of European empires, where hostages served as leverage against tribes or rulers perceived as threats to colonial order, often involving civilians or local notables held involuntarily to deter raids or secure tribute. A prominent example unfolded on Britain's North-West Frontier in , where from the mid-19th century onward, colonial administrators routinely seized relatives of Pashtun tribal leaders—such as from the and Wazir clans—to compel cessation of cross-border incursions into settled districts. Policies like those devised by officials including Thomas Macaulay in the institutionalized annual subsidies tied to hostage retention, fostering a system where detention ensured tribal accountability; for instance, in , British forces confiscated over 1,000 bullocks and 50 camels from in reprisal for kidnappings, while holding hostages to extract reparations. Such measures marked a departure from reciprocal elite exchanges, emphasizing punitive control over peripheral populations and integrating hostages into broader "forward policy" strategies against perceived Russian encroachment. Elsewhere, hostage crises highlighted the interplay of imperial grievances and emerging public pressures. In 1867, Ethiopian Emperor detained British envoys, missionaries, and European artisans—totaling about 60 captives—as leverage to demand aid against his rivals, prompting a British expedition of 13,000 troops in 1868 that stormed , freed the hostages, and led to Tewodros's suicide. This event underscored a modernizing dynamic: hostage-holding by non-European rulers against Westerners fueled domestic in metropoles, driving state responses beyond mere to decisive intervention, prefiguring no-concessions approaches. Early 19th-century resolutions of Barbary corsair hostage-taking further illustrated transitional tactics, as U.S. and European naval actions—such as the (1801–1805), which freed over 300 American captives from Tripoli—replaced tribute payments with bombardment and , diminishing state-sanctioned maritime hostage economies that had persisted since the . By century's end, these practices in colonial theaters contributed to a conceptual blurring of hostages with prisoners, as noted in emerging international discourse, where forceful civilian seizures grew despite the 1899 Hague Conventions' silence on the matter, setting precedents for 20th-century escalations in irregular conflicts.

International Prohibitions and Conventions

The taking of hostages is explicitly prohibited under , primarily through the of 1949. Article 34 of the states that "the taking of hostages is prohibited," applying to in occupied territories during international armed conflicts. Common Article 3, applicable to non-international armed conflicts, forbids "the taking of hostages" alongside other acts like murder and , classifying such violations as war crimes. These provisions impose obligations on states to prevent, suppress, and punish hostage-taking, with grave breaches requiring and prosecution. Additional Protocol I to the (1977), in Article 75, reinforces the ban on hostage-taking against persons in the power of an adversary, extending protections to fundamental guarantees in armed conflicts. Customary universally prohibits hostage-taking in both international and non-international conflicts, deeming it a war crime prosecutable by international tribunals such as the under the (Article 8). Beyond armed conflicts, the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (1979), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 34/146 on December 17, 1979, and entering into force on June 3, 1983, criminalizes hostage-taking as the seizure or detention of a person with threats to kill, injure, or continue detention to compel a third party (state or individual) to act or abstain from acting. States parties, numbering over 80 as of recent records, must establish it as a punishable offense, prosecute perpetrators or extradite them, and cooperate in investigations, irrespective of motive including political or ideological aims. The convention addresses peacetime and transnational cases, complementing IHL by focusing on prevention through domestic legislation and international assistance. United Nations Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 2133 (2014), further condemn hostage-taking as a violation of , urging immediate release of captives and enhanced cooperation against terrorism-linked abductions. These instruments collectively form a framework emphasizing deterrence, though enforcement relies on state compliance and lacks a dedicated international enforcement body.

Domestic Laws and Enforcement

Domestic laws prohibiting hostage-taking generally criminalize the seizure or detention of individuals with the intent to compel a third party, government, or organization to perform or abstain from an action as a condition for release, often implementing Article 1 of the 1979 International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages. In jurisdictions without specific statutes, such acts fall under broader offenses like kidnapping or false imprisonment, with penalties escalating based on harm inflicted or demands made. In the United States, federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 1203, enacted in 1984 to fulfill the UN Convention, punishes hostage-taking with imprisonment up to 20 years, or life if the victim dies or serious bodily injury occurs, applying extraterritorially when U.S. nationals are involved. Enforcement is primarily handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which asserts jurisdiction over interstate or international elements, utilizing crisis negotiation teams developed since the 1970s to prioritize victim safety and de-escalation over concessions. Tactical resolution, when negotiation fails, involves specialized units such as the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, trained for high-risk interventions. In the United Kingdom, the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 establishes the offense, mirroring the UN Convention by prohibiting detention with threats to induce action from third parties, punishable by up to life imprisonment, particularly when linked to terrorism under the Terrorism Act 2000. Enforcement involves local police for initial response, supported by the National Crime Agency's Anti-Kidnap and Extortion Unit for complex cases involving organized crime or cross-border elements, emphasizing intelligence-led operations and no-ransom policies. Many other nations, including Canada and Australia, have analogous statutes integrating international standards into penal codes, with enforcement agencies coordinating through mutual legal assistance treaties for transnational incidents, though domestic prosecution rates vary due to evidentiary challenges in proving intent. U.S. and UK policies explicitly reject ransom payments or policy changes to deter future takings, a stance rooted in empirical assessments that concessions incentivize repetition, as evidenced by historical patterns in criminal and terrorist hostage scenarios.

Contexts of Hostage-Taking

Diplomatic and State-Sponsored Actions

In historical diplomacy, hostages served as pledges to guarantee treaty compliance, with rulers exchanging family members, nobles, or representatives to bind agreements. This practice originated in ancient civilizations, where hostages ensured fidelity to peace terms or alliances, as seen in Roman treaties with defeated tribes or Greek interstate pacts. By the medieval period, such exchanges were formalized in feudal Europe and Anglo-Saxon England, where chronicles record instances like the delivery of hostages ("gislas") to secure truces or vassal oaths. State-sponsored hostage actions in modern contexts often manifest as coercive , where governments detain foreign nationals—frequently dual citizens or diplomats—to extract political or economic concessions. This includes prisoner swaps, asset releases, or policy alterations, as practiced by states like , , , and , which U.S. officials designate as serial detainers. For example, has held dozens of Westerners since , leveraging detentions for sanctions relief or nuclear negotiations, with over 50 Americans affected in the initial embassy seizure alone. Russia employs similar tactics, detaining U.S. citizens on charges to facilitate high-profile exchanges, such as the 2022 swap of player for arms dealer , highlighting how such actions integrate into broader geopolitical bargaining. China's arbitrary detentions of Canadians following the 2018 executive arrest exemplify retaliatory , aiming to influence decisions or trade policies. These practices violate international norms, including the 1979 Hostage Convention, yet persist due to their perceived efficacy in asymmetric power dynamics. Diplomatic responses to state-sponsored hostage-taking emphasize no-concessions policies to deter future incidents, though exchanges occur covertly to prioritize victim recovery. In 2023, 58 nations, led by , formed Against Arbitrary Detention to condemn and counter such tactics by adversarial states. Empirical data from U.S. cases show over 40 wrongful detentions since 2012, with resolutions often involving multilateral pressure rather than unilateral equivalents.

Warfare and Military Applications

In warfare, hostage-taking functions as a coercive tactic to compel compliance, deter resistance, or punish actions against occupying or invading forces, often requiring minimal resources compared to direct . This approach leverages the psychological and political value of human lives to extract concessions, maintain control over populations, or propagandize adversaries, proving effective in both symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. Historical precedents demonstrate its persistence, with occupying powers detaining civilians as security guarantees or measures, though such practices violate Article 34 of the , which explicitly prohibits the taking of hostages to intimidate or ensure compliance. During , systematically employed hostage policies in occupied territories to suppress partisan activity, issuing directives like the and guidelines that authorized executing 50 to 100 local civilians for each German soldier killed by resistance fighters. In a specific following the Polish Home Army's assassination of officer on February 1, 1944, German authorities publicly announced and carried out the execution of 100 Polish hostages in to instill terror and deter further attacks. Similar tactics appeared in other theaters, such as Italian and Balkan occupations, where hostages were selected from intellectuals or community leaders to maximize deterrent impact, though shows limited long-term suppression of insurgencies due to galvanizing resistance instead. In post-World War II conflicts, particularly insurgencies, non-state actors have adapted hostage-taking for leverage and media amplification, as seen in where groups beheaded foreign contractors to coerce withdrawals or policy shifts, generating influence disproportionate to their military capacity. State militaries, in response, integrate hostage rescue into doctrine, emphasizing elite units trained for rapid, intelligence-driven assaults prioritizing surprise, marksmanship, and minimal collateral risk. U.S. forces, for instance, prioritize such missions in and SEAL Team 6 training, viewing them analogous to raids but with heightened precision demands to avoid hostage harm. Contemporary applications persist in , where groups like or during the 2023-2025 Gaza conflict abducted soldiers and civilians en masse—over 250 in October 2023—to prolong engagements, complicate offensives, and force negotiations, exploiting captor-hostage dynamics for cognitive and operational disruption. Military countermeasures include doctrines like Israel's , which permits aggressive action to prevent captures even at risk to own personnel, reflecting causal prioritization of denying enemy leverage over individual preservation in fluid battlefields. Success rates in rescues remain low—estimated below 20% historically—due to gaps and tactical complexities, underscoring why doctrines favor prevention through deterrence or no-concession policies over reactive operations.

Terrorism and Criminal Exploitation

Hostage-taking serves as a tactical instrument for terrorist organizations to exert leverage over governments, secure the release of imprisoned comrades, or amplify ideological messages through media coverage. Unlike sporadic , these incidents often involve prolonged detentions of civilians or high-profile targets to maximize coercive pressure, with outcomes frequently turning lethal if demands are unmet. The categorizes such events into skyjackings, barricade missions, and kidnappings, reflecting structured operational patterns aimed at political disruption rather than mere financial extraction. Prominent examples illustrate the tactic's evolution and impact. On June 14, 1985, members of the Shia militant group hijacked Flight 847 en route from to , seizing 153 passengers and crew; the ordeal lasted 17 days across multiple countries, resulting in the murder of one U.S. Navy diver and the eventual release of most hostages in exchange for prisoner swaps. In the of September 1-3, 2004, Chechen separatists took over 1,100 hostages, including hundreds of children, leading to a botched rescue that killed 334 captives and all 31 attackers. Data from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime indicate that kidnappings constituted 6.9% of global terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2010, with the proportion rising through 2016 as groups adapted to counterterrorism measures by favoring remote or extended holdings. Criminal hostage-taking, by contrast, prioritizes monetary over political ends, exploiting vulnerabilities in governance-weak states through organized gangs or cartels that target expatriates, businesspeople, or locals for profit. These operations emphasize for payment rather than publicity, though violence escalates if ransoms are withheld, and perpetrators often operate transnationally with minimal ideological overlay. In regions like and , such incidents correlate with broader ecosystems, including drug trafficking, where hostages serve as bargaining chips to deter interference or fund operations. Recent trends underscore the scale in high-risk areas. recorded approximately 1,583 reported kidnappings in a recent annual period, predominantly ransom-driven by cartels amid underreporting due to corruption and fear. experienced over 3,420 abductions between July 2021 and June 2022, with ransoms exceeding 7 million naira (about $4.2 million USD at prevailing rates) across more than 500 incidents, fueling a shadow economy tied to and fringes. In , 9,696 ransom kidnappings occurred from 2002 to 2011, though post-2016 FARC shifted dynamics toward smaller criminal networks. Distinctions between the two persist in motivations and methods, yet overlaps emerge where terrorist entities, such as , hybridize tactics by demanding ransoms to sustain jihadist activities, complicating attribution and response. Empirical analyses reveal terrorists more likely to execute hostages publicly for , while criminals favor survival of victims to enable repeat , though both exploit psychological terror on captives and societies. databases like the highlight declining traditional hijackings but persistent kidnappings, advising against concessions to deter proliferation.

Negotiation and Resolution Approaches

Ransom Strategies: Efficacy and Risks

Ransom payments involve governments or families providing monetary compensation to captors in exchange for hostage release, a strategy employed despite official no-concessions policies in countries like the and . Empirical analyses of transnational terrorist kidnappings from 2001 to 2013 reveal that countries granting such concessions experienced 64% to 87% more abductions of their citizens compared to those adhering strictly to non-payment policies. This suggests short-term efficacy in securing releases for specific hostages—evidenced by successful negotiations in cases involving groups like —but at the cost of incentivizing captors to target nationals from concession-granting states, such as , , and , which have covertly paid ransoms totaling hundreds of millions. Studies indicate that successful ransom negotiations correlate with 26% to 57% higher rates over longer periods (1978–2013), as payments provide captors with financial resources to sustain operations and expand targeting. In contrast, the U.S. no-concessions approach has resulted in fewer abductions of relative to Europeans since 2001, with only 84 recorded U.S. victims despite global risks, implying a deterrent effect by denying economic rewards. However, evidence on hostage outcomes is mixed: while payments may shorten captivity durations, strict policies like Canada's have led to higher execution risks in some instances, as captors anticipate no payoff and resort to . RAND assessments highlight that historical deterrence claims remain inconclusive, with some research suggesting no-ransom stances could worsen individual survival rates without reducing overall incidents. Key risks include empowering terrorist financing, with over $1 billion (in 2020 U.S. dollars) paid globally since 2010 to groups like and , enabling expanded attacks in cases like , where violence escalated post-payments of $66 million from 2013 to 2014. Payments create a , signaling vulnerability and encouraging repeated demands, as seen in declines followed by resurgences in group activities after initial ransoms to AQIM ($100 million total post-2011). No payment guarantees release, and funds often support broader insurgencies rather than solely hostage welfare, undermining long-term security without verifiable reductions in future threats.

Non-Monetary Tactics: Rescue, Diplomacy, and No-Concessions Policies

Hostage rescue operations entail the deployment of elite military or units to overpower captors and liberate victims through direct , serving as a force-based alternative to monetary concessions. These missions demand precise , rapid execution, and minimized to avoid hostage fatalities from or reprisals. Success hinges on factors such as operational surprise and captor underestimation of response capabilities, as outlined in analyses of historical raids. A prominent example is Operation Nimrod, conducted by the British Special Air Service on May 5, 1980, during the in . The assault freed 19 of the remaining 26 hostages after six days of standoff, killed five terrorists, and captured the sixth, though one hostage had been executed earlier by captors. In recent conflicts, Israeli forces have executed multiple rescues amid the Gaza hostage crisis, recovering eight individuals since October 2023 through targeted operations, demonstrating tactical feasibility in urban environments despite elevated risks. Military rescues carry inherent dangers, with hostages facing execution risks during assaults; a RAND Corporation review of 20 Western-led attempts post-2001 reported partial success in 15 cases, including some American recoveries, but frequent injuries or deaths among victims. Failures, such as the 1980 U.S. in —which aborted due to helicopter malfunctions without engaging captors—underscore logistical vulnerabilities that can preclude execution altogether. Overall, these tactics prioritize immediate liberation over negotiation but succeed primarily when intelligence is superior and political will overrides concerns for potential casualties. Diplomatic tactics focus on sustained negotiations, multilateral pressure, and incentives short of cash ransoms to compel releases, often involving third-party mediators or linkage to broader geopolitical accords. The 1979-1981 resolved without direct U.S. ransom payments through the January 1981 Algiers Accords, which coordinated the release of 52 American diplomats after 444 days via diplomatic channels, asset unfreezing, and trade settlement claims rather than yields. Such efforts leverage sanctions, alliance , or prisoner swaps—deemed non-monetary despite value—to erode captor leverage without funding operations. In cases of state-sponsored detentions, has secured returns through high-level engagements, as in the 2023 U.S.-Iran deal freeing five wrongfully held Americans via mediated talks amid nuclear dispute resolutions, avoiding explicit while addressing underlying tensions. Effectiveness depends on captor motivations; non-terrorist states may respond to reputational costs from , whereas ideological groups resist absent threats. These approaches extend crises but preserve long-term deterrence by denying economic windfalls. No-concessions policies mandate government refusal of hostage-taker demands, including ransoms, prisoner releases, or policy alterations, to undermine the tactic's viability and prevent escalation in abductions. The United States formalized this stance in the 2015 Presidential Policy Directive-30, directing recovery via intelligence, diplomacy, and force while barring payments to designated terrorist entities, aiming to starve adversaries of resources. Similar doctrines in the UK and elsewhere emphasize collective non-payment to curb incentives, reinforced by UN Security Council Resolution 2133 (2014), which urged states to avoid ransoms benefiting terrorists. Empirical assessments reveal mixed deterrence; a RAND examination of U.S. since the found it correlates with fewer targeted kidnappings of relative to concession-granting nations, though incidents persist due to high-value perceptions of Western . Critics note trade-offs, as rigid adherence risks individual lives—evident in prolonged detentions—yet economic models indicate concessions amplify future attacks by signaling vulnerability. In practice, governments balance doctrine with discreet swaps, as in U.S.- exchanges, prioritizing victim recovery while mitigating precedent-setting appearances. This framework fosters resilience but demands robust alternatives like enhanced to offset non-engagement costs.

Psychological and Human Impacts

Short- and Long-Term Effects on Victims

Hostage victims commonly exhibit acute psychological responses during and immediately after captivity, including shock, , numbness, anxiety, guilt, depression, , and a pervasive of foreshortened , as these reactions stem from the sudden loss of control and exposure to life-threatening uncertainty. Physically, short-term effects encompass injuries from initial capture or restraint, , due to restricted food and , from constant vigilance, and heightened risk of or exacerbation of pre-existing conditions in unsanitary environments. These manifestations arise causally from the captors' deliberate deprivation tactics, which aim to induce compliance through physiological breakdown, though individual resilience varies based on duration of captivity and personal health prior to abduction. In the longer term, (PTSD) emerges as a predominant outcome, with empirical studies reporting prevalence rates of 25.8% among former maritime piracy hostages compared to 3.9% in non-captive , and up to 67.1% delayed-onset PTSD in longitudinal analyses of prolonged survivors. Chronic PTSD affects approximately 5% of cases, often accompanied by depression, anxiety disorders, , , and preoccupation with the trauma, persisting 1–3 years or more post-release. In months-long captivities, additional effects include learned helplessness, dissociation as a detachment mechanism from unrelenting stress, and erosion of self-agency manifesting in submissive behaviors such as begging for sustenance or relief. Complex PTSD, involving additional disruptions in and interpersonal relations, has been observed in released hostages exposed to or extended isolation. Physical sequelae include enduring musculoskeletal damage from restraints, neurological impairments from head trauma, and metabolic disorders from , with duration directly correlating to severity. Behavioral adaptations post-captivity frequently involve , avoidance of triggers, and difficulties reintegrating into social or professional roles, impairing daily functioning and relationships due to eroded trust and heightened . While some victims demonstrate recovery without intervention, evidenced by lower PTSD rates in shorter-duration cases, prolonged incarceration elevates risks for psychiatric disorders through sustained neurobiological stress responses, underscoring the need for targeted psychological support to mitigate chronic impairment. Factors such as pre-captivity , social support upon release, and absence of predict better outcomes, though empirical data confirm that even resilient individuals face elevated vulnerability to secondary stressors like media scrutiny.

Captor-Hostage Dynamics and Behavioral Adaptations

In hostage situations, captors typically establish dynamics of absolute control by regulating hostages' access to , , movement, and , fostering dependency and compliance as imperatives. This asymmetry compels hostages to adapt behaviors that minimize perceived threats, such as verbal or non-confrontational , which empirical studies frame as pragmatic strategies to de-escalate captor rather than genuine affinity. Captors often exploit this through intermittent —providing small mercies amid threats—to manipulate perceptions of benevolence, though such tactics reflect calculated more than mutual . Hostages frequently exhibit behavioral adaptations rooted in , including superficial cooperation, emotional suppression, and of captors as less hostile to endure isolation. Qualitative analyses of released reveal common tactics like sustaining internal via mental routines (e.g., recalling or future plans) and avoiding defiance that could provoke violence, with these mechanisms enabling short-term survival but risking long-term psychological entanglement. In prolonged captivities, hostages may internalize captor narratives or express anger inwardly to prevent retaliation, though direct opposition remains rare due to the high costs of non-compliance. The phenomenon colloquially termed —wherein hostages reportedly develop positive sentiments toward captors—lacks robust empirical validation as a distinct psychiatric disorder, with peer-reviewed critiques attributing observed bonds to adaptive under duress rather than trauma-induced . Studies indicate such responses occur infrequently, often in scenarios of perceived captor restraint from worse harm, and are better explained by evolutionary survival heuristics than pathological bonding; for instance, post-release over a captor's fate, noted in some cases, stems from disrupted dependency rather than . Limited diagnostic criteria and reliance on anecdotal media accounts undermine its clinical standing, emphasizing instead context-specific coping over universal syndrome. These dynamics underscore captivity's causal role in eliciting compliant behaviors that prioritize immediate safety, with variations influenced by captor temperament and hostage resilience.

Notable Cases and Patterns

Pre-20th Century Examples

![Anglo-Saxon Chronicle illustrating hostages](.assets/Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle_-gislas_sealde%28British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_A_VI%2C_folio_19r%29[float-right] In the Roman Republic's Gallic Wars from 58 to 50 BC, Julius Caesar imposed hostages on subjugated tribes to enforce compliance and deter uprisings, a practice rooted in Roman diplomacy to bind client states through familial leverage. Tribes such as the Aedui and Sequani surrendered noble sons as pledges of loyalty, with Caesar amassing thousands; for example, after the 57 BC campaign against the Belgae, over 600 hostages were taken from various confederations to guarantee tribute and military support. These arrangements often collapsed when tribes revolted, as seen in 52 BC when Vercingetorix's uprising prompted many hostages to be reclaimed or executed by their own kin. During the early Middle Ages in Anglo-Saxon , hostages (known as gislas in ) served as guarantees in treaties amid Viking incursions, frequently meeting violent ends to signal betrayal or defiance. In 994 AD, King Æthelred II exchanged hostages with Danish invaders and Sweyn Forkbeard following a failed of , yet subsequent raids saw hostages slaughtered, eroding trust in such pacts. By 1014, after Sweyn's death, his son returned 45 Anglo-Saxon hostages to Sandwich, where they were mutilated—hands and noses severed—before being dumped at the seashore, a punitive act to avenge perceived treachery and assert dominance. In medieval , hostages underpinned feudal alliances and truces, often involving high whose captivity ensured parental adherence to oaths. William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, was surrendered by King John of in 1205 as for a truce with , enduring captivity until ransomed after John's death in 1216, highlighting how hostages could transition from peril to political opportunity. Similarly, during the in the 11th century, figures like hostages from Lombard princes were exchanged to secure papal-imperial accords, though breaches led to executions, underscoring the precarious balance of trust in pre-modern .

20th Century Crises

In World War II, Nazi occupation forces in Europe systematically took civilians hostage and executed them as reprisals for partisan attacks and assassinations of German personnel, aiming to suppress resistance through terror. Such policies were formalized in orders like the Commissar Order and reprisal directives, leading to thousands of deaths across occupied territories. A prominent example occurred in occupied Warsaw, where German authorities executed groups of Polish intellectuals, clergy, and others in public spectacles to deter further actions by the Polish underground. The 1972 Munich Olympics massacre marked a shift toward high-profile terrorist hostage-taking. On September 5, 1972, eight Palestinian militants from infiltrated the in , , killing two Israeli athletes and seizing nine others. The attackers demanded the release of over 200 Palestinian prisoners in Israel and two German terrorists imprisoned for prior attacks. Negotiations failed, and a West German police assault at airfield ended in chaos, with all nine hostages killed, five terrorists dead, and one officer slain, highlighting deficiencies in unprepared security forces. In 1976, the hijacking demonstrated successful military intervention. On June 27, Flight 139 was seized by two Palestinian members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–External Operations and two German revolutionaries shortly after takeoff from , with 248 passengers and 12 crew aboard. The plane was diverted to , , then , , where Ugandan President provided support to the hijackers, who separated Jewish and Israeli passengers, releasing over 100 non-Jews. Demanding 40 prisoners' release from and others from , , and , the crisis prompted to launch Operation Entebbe on July 3–4, where commandos traveled 4,000 kilometers, stormed the terminal, and rescued 102 of 106 hostages in under 90 minutes, losing three hostages, the assault leader , and dozens of Ugandan troops. The Iran hostage crisis from 1979 to 1981 exemplified state-sponsored prolonged captivity. On November 4, 1979, Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, capturing 66 Americans—diplomats, military personnel, and civilians—initially demanding the extradition of the deposed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for trial. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's government endorsed the seizure, holding 52 hostages for 444 days amid mock trials, abuse, and international deadlock, while 14 were released earlier, including women and African Americans. A U.S. rescue mission, Operation Eagle Claw, aborted on April 24, 1980, after helicopter failures and a collision killed eight servicemen. Resolution came via the Algiers Accords on January 19, 1981, freeing the captives hours after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, in exchange for unfreezing $8 billion in Iranian assets and a U.S. pledge against interference. Lebanon's 1980s hostage crisis involved serial kidnappings by Shia Islamist factions amid civil war and Israeli occupation. From to , groups like Islamic Jihad and early elements abducted over 100 foreigners—primarily Americans, Britons, French, and Soviets—in to pressure Western governments and over interventions, including the . Notable victims included U.S. Terry Anderson, held six years and 239 days until December 1991, and CIA Beirut chief William Buckley, tortured and killed in 1985. Releases occurred piecemeal through secret diplomacy, prisoner swaps, and alleged covert deals like the U.S. Iran-Contra affair, despite official no-ransom policies, with the last Western hostages freed by following Syrian-brokered ceasefires. The has seen hostage-taking evolve primarily through non-state actors, particularly Islamist terrorist groups employing kidnappings for ideological leverage, , and exchanges rather than solely financial gain. Early incidents, such as the October 23-26, 2002, theater siege by Chechen militants, involved approximately 850 hostages seized during a musical performance; Russian special forces stormed the building using an gas, resulting in 132 hostage deaths, mostly attributed to the gas's effects rather than direct militant action. Similarly, the September 1-3, 2004, in saw Chechen-led militants hold over 1,100 hostages, predominantly children, in a gymnasium rigged with explosives; chaotic explosions and firefights during the assault led to 334 deaths, including 186 children, marking one of the deadliest school attacks in history. In and the , mass abductions surged with groups like and . On April 14, 2014, kidnapped 276 girls from a secondary school in Chibok, , in an explicit campaign against Western-style education; as of 2024, approximately 82 remained in captivity or unaccounted for, with many survivors reporting forced marriages and , contributing to over 1,700 child abductions in since 2014. , at its 2014-2017 peak, abducted thousands, including around 7,000 Yazidi civilians in and for enslavement and execution; the group beheaded at least 15 Western hostages in publicized videos to coerce ransoms or deter interventions, though U.S. and allied no-concession policies limited payouts, with affiliates later seeing a 43% decline in reported kidnappings by 2018. The October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on southern exemplified hostage-taking as a wartime tactic, with militants abducting approximately 250 civilians and soldiers amid widespread killings; hostages, including women, children, and elderly, were transported into Gaza tunnels, some subjected to documented abuse and used as human shields. By October 2025, cease-fire deals had facilitated the release of over 135 living hostages and the return of remains for at least 40 others killed during captivity or the initial assault, though around 20-48 remained held or unrecovered, with leveraging them for demands including swaps and cease-fires. This incident highlighted causal links between concessions and escalation, as prior swaps had freed hardened militants who participated in the attack. Ongoing trends indicate a persistence of hostage strategies in asymmetric conflicts, particularly by jihadist affiliates in the and , where groups like JNIM and ISWAP conduct frequent abductions for and , contributing to thousands of detentions annually. Criminal syndicates, such as cartels, have increasingly targeted migrants and locals for , with over 10,000 kidnappings reported yearly in by 2020, often resolved via payments despite official denials. Globally, terrorist hostage survival rates vary by captor ideology—higher for criminal groups (up to 90%) than fanatical ones like —but no- policies by Western states have shifted targeting toward Europeans and others willing to negotiate, prolonging some crises while deterring others. Empirical data from 2000-2023 shows a peak in ideological abductions during ISIS's , followed by fragmentation into localized threats, underscoring that concessions incentivize repetition as captors perceive gains in media attention and .

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1203
  2. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1102-hostage-taking-gravamen-offense
  3. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/strategic-use-hostages-ancient-world-003378
  4. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/2-the-system-of-hostage-regulations-in-rome-and-the-greco-roman-world-27-79/
  5. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-34/commentary/1958
  6. https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/hostages/
  7. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e808
  8. https://www.csis.org/analysis/hostage-taking-and-international-law-new-thinking
  9. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/hostage-rights-law-and-practice-throes-evolution
  10. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/taking_of_hostages
  11. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-34/commentary/2025?activeTab=
  12. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/hostage_n1
  13. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hostage
  14. https://www.etymonline.com/word/hostage
  15. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostage
  16. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_857_7.pdf
  17. https://www.onelook.com/?loc=thes3&w=hostageship
  18. https://brehonacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-Early-Irish-Hostage-Surety-and-Inter-Territorial-Alliances-Jaqueline-Bemmer-Institute-of-Historical-Research-2015.pdf
  19. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2585&context=ndlr
  20. https://lizbourke.wordpress.com/2023/11/09/58-captivity-in-antiquity-hostages-in-the-greek-world/
  21. https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/appendix-1a-historical-and-legendary-hostages-214-244/
  22. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007.02.04/
  23. https://www.athensjournals.gr/history/2016-2-3-4-Thijs.pdf
  24. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/bitstreams/92738a88-2a79-4029-b3ed-5d5ca23c49ab/download
  25. https://warhistory.org/%40msw/article/the-anglo-saxons-hostages-oaths-treaties-and-treachery-ii
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230354393_The_use_and_abuse_of_hostages_in_later_Anglo-Saxon_England
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286870822_Hostages_in_the_Middle_Ages
  28. https://academic.oup.com/book/3170/chapter/144046770
  29. https://academic.oup.com/book/3170/chapter/144050794
  30. https://www.medievalists.net/2019/01/mortgaging-medieval-children/
  31. https://thehistoryjar.com/2022/09/21/medieval-hostages/
  32. https://www.columbusstate.edu/archives/_docs/gah/1996/61-83.pdf
  33. https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2021/cermak_matej.pdf
  34. https://www.britannica.com/topic/hostage-warfare
  35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03086534.2015.1083200
  36. https://oro.open.ac.uk/44680/5/Hostages.Beattie.pdf
  37. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/british-policy-north-west-frontier-india-1877-1947-suitable-precedent-modern-day
  38. https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/abyssinia
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2192529
  40. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf
  41. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-treatment-prisoners-war
  42. https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/hostages
  43. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-5&chapter=18&clang=_en
  44. https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/terrorism/english-18-5.pdf
  45. https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-by-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield-at-a-un-security-council-arria-formula-meeting-on-hostage-taking/
  46. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-11-hostage-taking-18-usc-1203
  47. https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1820.html
  48. https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/fifty-years-of-fbi-crisis-hostage-negotiation
  49. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/28
  50. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/legislation/uk-parliament-acts/taking-of-hostages-act-1982-c28
  51. https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/kidnap-and-extortion
  52. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/08/domestic-politics-have-always-affected-hostage-deals.html
  53. https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/iraniancrises
  54. https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/01/prisoner-exchanges-and-hostage-diplomacy-in-us-foreign-policy/
  55. https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/members-event/state-sponsored-hostage-taking
  56. https://www.csis.org/analysis/combating-state-hostage-taking-and-wrongful-detention
  57. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/why-taking-hostages-such-potent-tool-warfare
  58. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r38492.pdf
  59. https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=714592
  60. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA427693
  61. https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1frv3si/why_is_hostage_rescue_such_a_central_mission_to/
  62. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/hostages-mind-hamass-strategic-use-captivity-cognitive-warfare
  63. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/10/06/how-hamass-hostage-tactic-checkmated-israels-war-strategy/
  64. https://www.start.umd.edu/research-projects/global-terrorism-database-gtd
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016189380900012X
  66. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/hijacking-of-twa-flight-847
  67. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/11/the-history-of-hostage-negotiations-tells-us-empathy.html
  68. https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/ru/education/tertiary/organized-crime/module-16/key-issues/kidnapping-for-ransom-and-terrorism.html
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2627800/
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274372679_The_Crime_Triangle_of_Kidnapping_for_Ransom_Incidents_in_Colombia_South_America_A_%27Litmus%27_Test_for_Situational_Crime_Prevention
  71. https://thelost.net/kidnapping/
  72. https://www.thecable.ng/the-burgeoning-kidnapping-industry/
  73. https://www.controlrisks.com/our-thinking/insights/kidnap-for-ransom-in-2022
  74. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/tg1726
  75. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088767914522466
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268016300143
  77. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207020221130308
  78. https://news.utdallas.edu/social-sciences/study-paying-terrorist-kidnappers-doesnt-pay-off-f/
  79. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE277.html
  80. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA427693.pdf
  81. https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/iranian-embassy-operation-nimrod-siege-sas-b2610902.html
  82. https://combatoperators.com/notable/missions/operation-nimrod/
  83. https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hostages-breakdown-3bc1f183a6466b0be7713ac135b386c0
  84. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2014/12/a-grim-choice-the-attempted-rescue-of-hostages.html
  85. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/12/6/a-brief-history-of-failed-us-rescue-bids
  86. https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/09/why-now-tortured-history-irans-hostage-seizures
  87. https://www.csis.org/analysis/bidens-hostage-diplomacy-explained
  88. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/24/presidential-policy-directive-hostage-recovery-activities
  89. https://press.un.org/en/2014/sc11262.doc.htm
  90. https://www.apa.org/topics/trauma/hostage-kidnap
  91. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Hostage-Health-Hostages-and-Missing-Families-Forum-Report-English.pdf
  92. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-psychiatric-treatment/article/hostagetaking-motives-resolution-coping-and-effects/1EC7C6FE7B502B95234C5BE2C1E9995F
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X17303925
  94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223968586_Predictors_of_PTSD_trajectories_following_captivity_A_35-year_longitudinal_study
  95. https://capmh.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13034-024-00767-3
  96. https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-831653
  97. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/news/delegation-of-mothers-of-hostages-meets-with-the-president-of-the-red-cross-in-geneva-12-aug-2025/en/English_Swords_of_Iron_DOCUMENTS_Impact_of_Captivity_Report_FULL_250812_105125.pdf
  98. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03069885.2018.1461193
  99. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23556956_Prolonged_Incarceration_Effects_on_Hostages_of_Terrorism
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953602005051
  101. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-025-03183-0
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9858395/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12335088/
  104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5819575_%27Stockholm_syndrome%27_Psychiatric_diagnosis_or_urban_myth
  105. https://krigsvidenskab.dk/emne/violence-against-hostages-analysis-12-cases-hostage-taking-2007-2017
  106. https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_gallic
  107. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/38241/what-happened-to-caesars-hostages-in-gaul
  108. https://warhistory.org/%40msw/article/the-anglo-saxons-hostages-oaths-treaties-and-treachery-i
  109. https://thepostgradchronicles.org/2017/05/05/danish-invasion-viking-violence-and-cnuts-mutilation-of-hostages-at-sandwich/
  110. https://dokumen.pub/hostages-in-the-middle-ages-0199651701-9780199651702.html
  111. https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Massacre
  112. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/munich-massacre.htm
  113. https://www.britannica.com/event/Entebbe-raid
  114. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/wars-and-operations/operation-entebbe/
  115. https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-hostage-crisis
  116. https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/lebanon-hostage-crisis
  117. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/22/us-journalist-terry-anderson-held-hostage-in-lebanon-in-1980s-dies
  118. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/october-23/hostage-crisis-in-moscow-theater
  119. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/nigeria-decade-after-boko-haram-attack-on-chibok-82-girls-still-in-captivity/
  120. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/crt_national_consortium.pdf
  121. https://www.ajc.org/news/who-are-the-hostages-still-held-by-hamas
  122. https://www.npr.org/2025/10/12/nx-s1-5572493/hostages-israel-gaza-hamas
  123. https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/documents/EU_TE-SAT_2025.pdf
  124. https://icct.nl/sites/default/files/2023-01/Chapter-24-Handbook-.pdf
  125. https://www.csis.org/analysis/fifty-years-after-hostage-taking-went-global-were-still-learning-lessons
  126. https://hostageaid.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Hostage-Aid-Global-Hostage-Report-2023-January-16-Update.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.