Boycott, historically conceived as a coercive instrument in international law, has evolved into a multifaceted phenomenon at the intersection of economic regulation, state sovereignty, and human rights. This study reassesses the legal status of boycotts by situating them within both the coercive practices traditionally used by states and the emerging human rights discourse shaping contemporary international relations. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, the article explores the conceptual contours of boycott, its distinction from embargo, and its normative evaluation under the United Nations Charter, World Trade Organization rules, and customary international law. Particular attention is given to the principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination as determinants of legitimacy, as well as to the jurisprudence of international bodies that have addressed boycott-related claims. Through historical and contemporary case studies, the paper demonstrates that while boycotts can serve as lawful non-military coercive measures, their effectiveness and legitimacy ultimately depend on conformity with international agreements, human rights standards, and diplomatic considerations. The findings underscore the need to reconceptualize boycott not only as a coercive practice but also as a tool embedded in broader transnational debates on accountability and human rights.