US officials say they have carried out a number of strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea, killing multiple drug traffickers. Announcing the first of these in September, President Donald Trump claimed forces destroyed a vessel connected to the Tren de Aragua cartel, allegedly carrying drugs destined for the US.
Similar announcements have followed, showing grainy footage without clear evidence of drug trafficking or details about who or what was on these vessels. The Trump administration argues these strikes are acts of self-defense against illicit drug operations, but they have drawn condemnation from leaders in affected regions.
For instance, the Colombian president contested that one of the struck vessels was Colombian, not Venezuelan, despite US claims. Legal experts have voiced concerns that these military actions might violate international law, particularly with respect to attacks on vessels in international waters.
What does international law say?
The US is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, yet military legal advisers have suggested that US operations should align with its principles. According to the convention, interference with ships in international waters is generally prohibited, with few exceptions allowing for actions like 'hot pursuit'. Experts like Prof. Luke Moffett have indicated that US actions may have been unlawful under these terms.
Are US strikes on alleged cartel members legal?
Questions about legality extend to the characterizations of the individuals targeted in these strikes. Despite designating the Tren de Aragua cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, experts argue that labelling these individuals as 'narco-terrorists' does not legally make them military targets. The legal implications are complicated, with some scholars pointing out that the US isn't technically engaged in armed conflict with Venezuela.
Can Trump launch attacks without congressional approval?
Amidst these military operations, questions linger regarding whether the Trump administration complied with US law concerning military engagements. While the President can act as Commander in Chief, the scope of this authority is disputed when targeting non-state actors like drug cartels. Congress ultimately defeated a resolution demanding that further strikes receive prior approval, highlighting a contentious debate over military authority and intervention.
What do we know about US operations in the region?
The Venezuelan government has responded angrily to these strikes, denying allegations of drug trafficking involvement. US operations follow the deployment of naval forces to the Caribbean and the authorization of covert operations against Venezuela. President Trump has publicly sought to undermine Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, harking back to prior elections criticized as fraudulent.
