You can clearly see how this creates insentives for not trading with Cuba and instead trading with the far larger market next to it.
Any company in the world doing business in Cuba is also sanctioned by the US and it's employees are barred from entering the US.
You may be able to buy a bottle of Cuban rum at your liquor store, but that store can not do business in the US, use US banks, and the senior employees may be barred from traveling to the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms%E2%80%93Burton_Act#Summa...
And the choice made by the US is to not trade with Cuba or anyone who trades with Cuba - it's their right to make this choice.
You're just framing the violation as a choice and saying it is their right to make that choice. Sure, they also have the right to make the choice to invade Canada, but actually invading is obviously violating their autonomy.
I decide that I don't want to trade with Country A because they are producing weapons that they plan on using to attack me with. Now let's say Country B is trading with Country A, and I think they are trading components being used to produce the weapons in Country A.
Is it a violation of Country B's autonomy for me to decide to not to trade with them because they are trading with country A?
If I believe that anyone who trades with Country A is supplying them resources to build weapons to attack me, and I decide to not trade with any Country who is trading with Country A, am I violating the autonomy for all of those countries?
Yes.
>am I violating the autonomy for all of those countries?
Yes.
The clearer example would be imagine country A attacked me, would refusing to trade with country B violate their autonomy? And the answer is still yes, but both country A and B are already violating your autonomy so it's a justifiable violation.
With your example, I wouldn't say producing weapons clearly violated your autonomy, but that's a completely different argument.
One have to distinguish country and its citizens. Sanctions is not just 'country decides whom to trade with' but 'country restrict freedom of its citizens to trade' and that is rather significant infringement of freedom and as such it has to be justified by its necessity.