United Nations human rights experts have expressed grave concerns over a series of US military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, suggesting these actions may amount to potential war crimes. The experts, comprising three members of a UN rights body, highlighted that the strikes, which began on September 2, 2023, appear to violate international maritime law by constituting “unlawful killings” without any judicial or legal process.
The strikes reportedly targeted vessels suspected of trafficking narcotics, resulting in at least 64 fatalities and leaving only three survivors. The UN experts emphasized that there was no attempt to apprehend suspects or provide evidence justifying their status as lawful targets. They stated that the strikes do not appear to be motivated by “national self-defense” and did not target individuals posing an imminent threat to life.
In a letter issued after the initial strikes, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth defended the military actions as a necessary response to “extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels,” which he described as terrorist organizations threatening US citizens and national security. Hegseth asserted that the countries within the region are unable or unwilling to address these threats effectively. He reiterated this stance in a post on X on October 28, 2023, declaring, “[t]hese narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”
Legal Implications and International Law
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not explicitly prohibit strikes in international waters. It does, however, establish principles regarding “freedom of the high seas” for peaceful purposes (Articles 87-88). While the US is a party to UNCLOS, the experts argue that actions taken must align with its provisions.
According to the UN Charter, self-defense is justified only in response to an “armed attack,” requiring actions to be necessary and proportionate under customary law. Critics have raised doubts regarding the legality of these strikes, particularly whether President Donald Trump could classify cartel members as enemy combatants rather than criminals, thus justifying military action without congressional approval.
The seriousness of these claims has prompted calls from UN experts for an immediate cessation of the strikes and an independent investigation into the incidents. The implications of these military actions underscore a critical intersection of international law, national security, and human rights.
The controversy surrounding the strikes is compounded by the historical context of military responses to drug trafficking. Legal experts have long debated the parameters of military engagement in such contexts, questioning the balance between national security imperatives and adherence to international law.
As the situation develops, the international community will be closely watching the US government’s response to these allegations and the potential ramifications for its military strategy in combating drug-related violence in the region.
