Fact check: Can foreign naval vessels use force against suspected drug boats in the territorial waters of another country?

1. Why this keeps coming up: strikes, questions, and headlines

Reports of U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in or near other countries’ waters have catalyzed legal scrutiny and public debate over whether foreign naval forces can use lethal force in another state’s territorial sea. News analyses note that recent operations prompted immediate expert criticism arguing such strikes may violate international law, with commentators calling them potentially extrajudicial when undertaken without clear legal authorization from the coastal state or an applicable treaty framework ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The controversy underscores a gap between operational counternarcotics pressure and legal constraints.

2. What international law says about territorial seas and sovereignty

Under the prevailing legal framework, a coastal state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles, giving it primary authority to enforce criminal laws and regulate security activities; foreign states cannot lawfully use force there except with consent or a clear legal exception. Experts point out that unilateral use of lethal force by a third state inside those waters, absent permission or self‑defense, risks violating the coastal state’s sovereignty and human rights obligations, a principle reiterated in recent legal commentary questioning the lawfulness of external strikes ^{[2] [4]}.

3. Hot pursuit: the limited escape hatch that doesn't cover everything

The doctrine of hot pursuit, codified in UNCLOS Article 111 and explained in contemporary analyses, permits a coastal state to continue an uninterrupted chase beyond the territorial sea into the high seas to apprehend a vessel that violated its laws in internal waters or the territorial sea. This doctrine requires immediate commencement, continuous pursuit, and clear signals to stop; it does not authorize another state’s forces to enter a coastal state’s territorial sea to use force unless that foreign state is exercising rights derived from the coastal state or acting with explicit consent ^{[5] [6] [3]}.

4. Consent and cooperation: the practical legal pathway for foreign navies

Capacity‑building programs and cooperative frameworks emphasize that maritime law enforcement by foreign navies normally operates through consent, joint operations, or capacity building rather than unilateral force. Initiatives like AMLEP and recent U.S. funding pledges for maritime law enforcement stress partnership, training, and combined operations rather than empowering foreign forces to exercise coercive action in coastal states’ territorial seas without permission ^{[7] [8]}. These programs underscore that lawful cooperation hinges on the coastal state’s authorization.

5. New task forces versus established norms — where policy and law collide

Announcements of more militarized counternarcotics task forces signal a policy shift toward robust interdiction, raising legal and operational questions about how those forces will operate within international law. Analysts note that while a regional task force could enable stronger action against trafficking, its lawfulness depends on rules of engagement, host‑nation consent, and adherence to UNCLOS and human rights law, not merely political will or capability. The recent literature warns of legal exposure if operations stray into another state’s territorial sea without permission ^{[9] [2]}.

6. Divergent expert views and the accountability question

Legal scholars and verification analyses diverge in emphasis: some stress operational necessity to stem deadly trafficking, while others insist international law and human rights norms constrain the use of force outside a coastal state’s consent. Recent reporting documents experts who argue that lethal strikes without legal basis amount to unlawful extrajudicial killings, whereas proponents frame interdiction as a security imperative; the absence of transparent legal justifications fuels scrutiny and calls for accountability ^{[2] [4]}.

7. Practical implications for states and navies operating at sea

For navies and policymakers, the practical takeaway is that clear legal authority and cooperation mechanisms are essential. When pursuing suspected drug boats, states should rely on coastal-state consent, joint tasking, or exercise of hot pursuit only as authorized to avoid breaching sovereignty and international obligations. Capacity‑building programs and diplomatic channels provide the lawful avenues for more aggressive interdiction without violating territorial rules ^{[7] [8] [5]}.

8. Bottom line: rules remain, but tensions will persist

The law clearly limits foreign use of force inside another state's territorial waters absent consent or narrowly defined exceptions; recent strikes have exposed the friction between enforcement ambitions and legal constraints, prompting calls for clarity, oversight, and cooperative frameworks to reconcile counternarcotics goals with sovereignty and human rights. The continuing debate will turn on operational transparency, treaty arrangements, and whether states prioritize cooperative capacity building over unilateral kinetic measures ^{[1] [4] [9]}.