The contemporary architecture of international relations is witnessing new challenges to state sovereignty, notably the emergence of so-called “exclusion zones”: geographically demarcated enclaves located within the borders of a state but operating exclusively to serve the military and political interests of another. The United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, situated on Cuban territory, serves as the quintessential embodiment of such an exclusion zone. The relevance of this study is underscored by the progressive institutionalization of these extraterritorial enclaves, which have evolved beyond conventional military infrastructure into active instruments for projecting influence over independent states; they have transformed into staging grounds not only for targeted covert operations against dissenting foreign leaders, but also for full-scale military invasions. Crucially, these “exclusion zones” operate in a state of factual impunity, existing entirely outside the jurisdictional reach of their host states and beyond the constraints of international law. The Guantanamo Bay base houses a detention facility specifically for individuals suspected of terrorist activities. The detainees held within this facility have been subjected to a radical legal “exclusion” - a systemic deprivation of their status as subjects of law - which has facilitated inhumane treatment and sophisticated methods of torture. The primary objective of this research is to introduce a rigorous definition of “exclusion zones” into academic discourse and to elucidate their specific characteristics using Guantanamo Bay as a case study, tracing its qualitative transformation from a traditional military garrison into a broader US “zone of influence” spanning Latin America, the Caribbean, and beyond. The article examines the key historical stages of the base’s formation and analyzes its ongoing functional role as a catalyst for geopolitical tension and an instrument of hybrid warfare. The methodological framework integrates Hans J. Morgenthau’s classical political realism, Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism, a structural-functional approach, and post-structuralist political philosophy (M. Foucault, G. Agamben, A. Mbembe), accompanied by a problem-chronological approach. The scientific novelty of the study lies in establishing the inextricable link between the proliferation of these “exclusion zones”, including highly classified extraterritorial detention facilities, and the legitimization of acts of “coercive justice” and direct military aggression serving US strategic interests. The findings reveal the legal mechanisms underpinning the establishment of “exclusion zones”, determining that their foundation rests upon the theory of “split sovereignty”, which deliberately generates artificial legal vacuums enabling powerful international actors to systematically violate fundamental principles of international law. To counter this challenge, the study formulates strategic responses for the Global South, advocating a decisive shift away from passive observation in favor of denouncing exploitative bilateral agreements under the doctrine of a fundamental change of circumstances (rebus sic stantibus), developing a blocking international legal framework against unilateral sanctions, and establishing alternative judicial mechanisms within emerging multipolar institutions.