Helms-Burton for dealing with Cuba is legally questionable because it?

The Helms-Burton Act, officially known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, is legally questionable primarily because it calls for secondary boycotts. Secondary boycotts involve penalizing third-party countries or companies that engage in business with the subject nation—in this case, Cuba. This extraterritorial reach is contentious in international law, as it attempts to impose U.S. laws on foreign entities operating beyond U.S. borders, raising concerns about sovereignty and compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations and international agreements.

While the other options present notable aspects of the controversy surrounding the Helms-Burton Act, they do not encapsulate its legal ambiguities to the same degree. For instance, while the act does indeed tie trade sanctions to the assessment of human rights, this subjective evaluation is commonly debated but is not in itself the primary factor contributing to its legal challenges. Similarly, focusing on specific sectors of the Cuban economy may limit its application but does not challenge the fundamental legal issues associated with secondary boycotts. Lastly, the imposition of trade sanctions on all types of goods is more a matter of enforcement rather than the legal questions raised by the extraterritorial enforcement of U.S. law