Notre Dame, Sep 8 (The Conversation) – The U.S. government has justified its recent destruction of a boat suspected of carrying illegal drugs in the Caribbean by labeling it as an action against "narco-terrorists". However, as an expert on international law, I believe this argument lacks validity. Even if the individuals killed in the U.S. Naval strike on September 2, 2025, were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, it does not change the legal perspective concerning the use of force by state actors.
Regardless of the lack of protest from other nations, possibly influenced by the significant diplomatic and economic power of Washington and President Donald Trump’s assertive stance, the question of legality remains. Unlawful killings are illegal irrespective of the perpetrator, motive, or international reaction, and the U.S. strike on the Venezuelan drug boat was indeed unlawful.
Setting aside domestic U.S. legal issues, which have also been raised, the deaths in the Caribbean violate the human right to life—a fundamental principle preserved in major human rights treaties.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty to which the U.S. is a party, enshrines this principle. Article 6 of the covenant states: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
Judicial decisions in human rights and other courts have consistently held that determining if a killing is arbitrary hinges on whether it occurred in peacetime or armed conflict.
Peace is the default state, and during peacetime, government agents may only resort to lethal force to protect life immediately. The United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials support this standard, asserting that "intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life." Additionally, the U.S. has entered into bilateral treaties regarding cooperation in drug interdiction.
The U.S. Coast Guard has established a series of effective Maritime Law Enforcement Agreements, known as Shiprider Agreements, with numerous Caribbean nations. These agreements commit U.S. authorities to uphold the fundamental due process rights of criminal suspects, which do not extend to summary executions at sea.
By bypassing these bilateral and international treaties to destroy the ship, the U.S. not only violated the law but also jeopardized trust in these and any future agreements.
In an armed conflict scenario, intentionally targeting an enemy vessel with lethal force is allowed, provided the attack adheres to international humanitarian law. However, I contend that the U.S. cannot convincingly argue it acted within an armed conflict context. Under international law, armed conflict exists when organized armed groups engage in intense combat for at least a day.
The U.S. began to disregard this definition of armed conflict when it initiated targeted killings of terrorism suspects using drones and other military methods in 2002. Although war was ongoing in Afghanistan, I would argue that operations in Yemen and other areas were not sufficiently connected to the combat there to be deemed lawful. The incident in the Caribbean on September 2 was a clearer violation, as there was no connection to any hostilities.
Although the Trump administration labeled the boat's occupants as part of a highly violent organized crime group, they are not engaged in armed conflict. While some armed groups involved in warfare may engage in drug activities to finance their efforts, there is no evidence that the gang targeted by President Donald Trump was such a group.
The term "narco-terrorist" used by the Trump administration is not recognized under international law and creates no exceptions to established principles concerning the right to life. Additionally, the right to life remains unchanged whether that right is violated on the high seas or in territorial waters.
Given the likelihood that the U.S. has flouted international law, one might expect the Trump administration to face accountability through international legal mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. However, prosecuting alleged international law violations is notoriously challenging, and considering the power of the U.S. government and the nature of the victims—members of an alleged drug gang—the political will to hold Washington accountable may be weak.
Nevertheless, this incident presents a significant opportunity to demand respect for international law and its provisions regarding the right to life.
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
