Are US attacks on drug boats in Latin America legal and what do we know about them?

Recent US attacks on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean have sparked intense debate over their legality, with over 80 fatalities reported since September. The strikes, which President Donald Trump describes as targeting "narco-terrorists" linked to Venezuela and operated by the Tren de Aragua cartel, have been accompanied by blurred footage but little concrete evidence regarding the cargo or individuals onboard.

US authorities assert the actions are self-defensive, yet regional leaders have condemned the operations. In one incident, the Colombian president stated the targeted boat carried Colombian citizens, contrary to US claims that it was Venezuelana statement denied by the White House. UN experts have highlighted the "systemic" nature of these strikes as potentially indicative of international law violations.

International Law Concerns

The United States is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, though military legal advisors have suggested adherence to its principles. The convention generally prohibits interference with ships in international waters, with exceptions such as "hot pursuit" from territorial waters. Experts stress that any use of force should prioritize non-lethal methods unless there is an immediate threat to life, making the US strikes likely unlawful under maritime law.

Use of Force Against Alleged Cartel Members

Experts have questioned whether killing alleged members of the Tren de Aragua cartel complies with international norms governing the use of force. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter permits military action primarily in response to an armed attack. Although the US has labeled the cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and accused it of hostile acts, legal scholars argue that labeling individuals as "narco-terrorists" does not automatically legitimize lethal strikes.

Professor Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin commented that the US actions stretch the legal definitions of self-defense and lawful military targets. Professor Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast similarly noted that indiscriminate labeling of individuals as terrorists circumvents established international law.

Authorization and US Law

Questions have emerged over whether the White House had the legal authority under US law to approve these attacks. While the US Constitution reserves war declarations for Congress, Article II grants the president powers as Commander in Chief, which some interpret as allowing military strikes against foreign targets. Experts remain uncertain if this extends to non-state actors like drug cartels. The 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force Act has also been cited as justification, though its application to groups such as Tren de Aragua is debatable.

The War Powers Resolution, which requires consultation with Congress before engaging in hostilities, also raises concerns. A Senate resolution that would have demanded congressional approval for future strikes was defeated, despite some Republican opposition.

US Operations in the Caribbean

Venezuela has condemned the strikes, with President Nicolas Maduro rejecting claims of involvement in drug trafficking. Reports indicate the US has deployed naval ships, aircraft, and drones to the region for anti-narcotics missions. Satellite imagery and public tracking data show 14 US military vessels, including guided missile destroyers and amphibious assault ships, in the area. Additionally, covert CIA operations have been authorized, and a $50 million reward has been offered for information leading to Maduros arrest.

These developments have intensified scrutiny of US military actions, raising both regional tensions and questions about compliance with international and domestic law.

Author: Riley Thompson