Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How is it legal to blow up ships and kill everyone on board off the coast of south america with no court case or proof of illegality?
Executive summary
The United States has carried out multiple air and naval strikes on small vessels off South America this year, killing dozens — reporting at least 83 deaths across 21 strikes as of mid-November 2025 [1]. Governments, the UN, rights groups and legal scholars disagree sharply about whether these strikes were lawful: U.S. officials invoke counter‑drug and self‑defence rationales, while the U.N. human rights office, Amnesty and many international law experts say the strikes likely breach international law and require investigation [1] [2] [3].
1. What actually happened: a rapid, lethal interdiction campaign
Since September 2025 the U.S. military publicly acknowledged a series of strikes on small vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, with reporting putting the death toll in the dozens and the count rising as operations continued — various outlets cite figures such as 37 dead in nine strikes, 43 dead in 10 strikes, 70–76 in later tallies, and at least 83 deaths in November updates [4] [5] [6] [1]. The administration frames the campaign as an effort to disrupt trafficking and has scaled a naval presence in the region, including an aircraft carrier strike group [7] [8].
2. U.S. government legal rationale: self‑defence, non‑international armed conflict, and interdiction options
U.S. officials have argued the operations fall within a combination of counternarcotics law‑enforcement and armed‑conflict concepts — at times treating cartels as “narco‑terrorists” or asserting a non‑international armed conflict with trafficking groups so that lethal force can be used against those directly participating in hostilities [9] [10]. President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have asserted legal authority to strike in international waters and notified Congress in broad terms [11] [12].
3. Key legal objections from international law and human‑rights bodies
Independent legal analysts, the U.N. human‑rights chief and NGOs say the strikes likely violate international human rights law and possibly the law of the sea and armed conflict principles. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said publicly that, based on sparse information, the individuals on targeted boats did not appear to pose an imminent threat justifying lethal force and called for investigations [2]. Amnesty International argued the strikes were illegal and noted officials had not shown interdiction was impossible — and even cited U.S. officials saying interception was an option [3].
4. Maritime law complications: flags, hot pursuit, and stateless vessels
Under the law of the sea, states generally must not use force against vessels on the high seas except in narrow circumstances (e.g., hot pursuit of a vessel fleeing from a coastal state's authorities) and the ship’s flag and nationality matter [13] [14]. Some commentators note that attacking a flagless or stateless vessel on the high seas may not violate the jus ad bellum in the same way as attacking another state, but that does not automatically legalize killing people aboard without meeting human‑rights or humanitarian law tests [10].
5. International humanitarian law and “direct participation” threshold
If the U.S. characterizes counternarcotics as armed conflict, international humanitarian law (IHL) would demand that persons targeted be directly participating in hostilities and that attacks observe distinction and proportionality. Scholars emphasize a strict three‑part test (threshold of harm, direct causation, belligerent nexus) to deem civilians as losing protection — and many experts say the public record has not shown adherence to those requirements here [15].
6. Political and diplomatic fallout: divided regional and global responses
Latin American governments and regional bodies have been split along political lines, with some leaders criticizing the strikes and a Celac declaration rejecting use of force not in accordance with the UN Charter; European and U.N. officials have publicly questioned legality [1] [6] [16]. Analysts also note the operations serve multiple purposes — counternarcotics messaging, pressure on Venezuela, and geopolitical signaling — which complicates legal and political assessments [17].
7. What accountability or legal process exists?
The U.N. office and rights groups have called for independent, transparent investigations and possible prosecutions if extrajudicial killings occurred [2] [3]. Domestic U.S. legal frameworks (criminal statutes on destruction of vessels, prohibitions on assassinations) and international mechanisms (UN inquiries, potential ICC interest raised by some experts) could be relevant, but available reporting shows no public, completed independent investigation as of the cited coverage [18] [19] [20]. Available sources do not mention a finished international court case or conviction arising from these strikes.
8. Bottom line for your question — “How is it legal?”
There is no single uncontested answer in public reporting. The U.S. government asserts legal grounds under a blend of counternarcotics and armed‑conflict reasoning [11] [9]. Countervailing authoritative voices — the U.N. human‑rights office, Amnesty, many legal scholars and some foreign governments — say the strikes likely breach international human‑rights and maritime law and demand investigation [2] [3] [21]. Whether any particular strike was lawful will turn on classified facts (intelligence about imminent threat or combatant status, flag state, alternatives tried), which public sources describe as sparse; that factual opacity fuels the sharp legal disagreement [2] [3].
If you want, I can assemble a short timeline of specific strikes and the publicly stated justifications and criticisms for each incident from the cited coverage.