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 said his forces had destroyed a vessel that had departed from Venezuela. He stated the boat was operated by the Tren de Aragua cartel and was carrying drugs bound for the US.
However, subsequent strikes and announcements have been accompanied by grainy footage but lack substantial evidence to confirm the alleged drug trafficking activities and provide details about the individuals aboard.
Trump’s administration argues these actions fall under the right to self-defense against boats carrying illicit drugs. Yet, this rationale has faced strong condemnation, especially from regional leaders. For instance, the Colombian president contended that one attacked boat was not Venezuelan but Colombian, carrying Colombian citizens, a claim the White House refuted.
BBC Verify consulted international law experts following the strikes, with several indicating that the US could be acting illegally in its attacks against these vessels.
What does international law say?
The United States is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; nevertheless, US military legal advisors have indicated the necessity to act in accordance with its provisions. Generally, under international law, interference with vessels in international waters is prohibited, barring limited exceptions.
Professor Luke Moffett from Queen's University Belfast suggested that while force can be employed to immobilize a boat, it should generally employ non-lethal measures. He expressed that the aggressive tactics used by the US were likely unlawful under maritime law.
Are the US strikes on alleged cartel members legal?
Legal scholars also question whether targeting members of the Tren de Aragua cartel could violate international law concerning the use of force. Article 2(4) of the UN charter permits the use of military force solely when under attack. Trump has previously charged the cartel with waging irregular warfare against the US, with the State Department classifying them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Nevertheless, experts like Professor Michael Becker assert that simply labeling them as narco-terrorists does not justify them as lawful military targets, especially since the US is not formally engaged in armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua cartel.
A memo leaked to Congress purportedly indicated the Trump administration viewed the US as in a 'non-international armed conflict' with drug cartels.
Can Trump launch attacks without congressional approval?
The strikes further raise concerns regarding adherence to US law, which requires Congress to declare war. However, Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad powers as Commander in Chief, with some arguing this extends to authorizing military actions against actors like drug cartels.
Experts caution, though, that it is uncertain whether the President’s powers under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act apply to drug cartels such as Tren de Aragua.
What do we know about US operations in the region?
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has vocally condemned the US strikes, denying accusations of drug trafficking. Reports indicate that the US has deployed naval warships to support anti-narcotic operations in the region, with a total of 14 identified military ships including guided missile destroyers.
Trump has also recently acknowledged authorizing CIA operations in Venezuela and offered a $50 million reward for information leading to Maduro's capture.
This ongoing situation prompts critical discussions around national security, law, and international relations in the continental landscape, and how these military engagements will shape the future of US-Latin America dynamics.
