What recent South American maritime incidents involved alleged unlawful use of force by states?
Executive summary
U.S. forces have carried out repeated air and naval strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific since early September 2025, with independent tallies and U.S. statements reporting dozens killed — media and intergovernmental bodies cite figures from “more than 60” to “at least 76” dead across multiple strikes [1] [2] [3]. UN experts and the UN human rights chief have concluded these attacks “raise grave concerns” and “violate international human rights law,” calling for investigations and immediate halting of such operations [4] [3].
1. U.S. strikes at sea: what happened and the human toll
Beginning in September 2025, U.S. military forces conducted a campaign of strikes on small vessels the administration described as drug-trafficking or “narcoterrorist” boats in the southern Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific; reporting indicates at least 15–19 strikes on roughly 20 vessels over weeks, with media tallies putting the death toll in the tens to more than seventy [1] [2] [5] [6]. Official U.S. releases and press accounts show the strikes have been public, sometimes accompanied by administration videos and statements framing the action as counternarcotics operations [1] [5].
2. International legal alarm: UN experts and human-rights findings
Independent UN human-rights experts and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have publicly warned that the strikes “appear to be unlawful killings” and “violate international human rights law,” arguing that available public information does not show the attacks took place in self‑defence or within an armed-conflict context that would legalise summary lethal force at sea [4] [3]. The experts call for comprehensive, impartial investigations and remedies for victims’ families [4].
3. Legal debate inside and outside the U.S.: competing views
Some U.S. officials and the administration justify the strikes as lawful counternarcotics and counter‑terror measures; many legal scholars, former government lawyers and observers dispute that rationale, saying trafficking or migration facilitation typically does not meet thresholds for use-of-force against foreign nationals at sea and that the attacks may amount to extrajudicial killings [7] [8] [9]. Congressional Democrats have demanded declassification of a DOJ opinion that purportedly shields U.S. personnel from prosecution, signalling political and legal contention at home [10].
4. Regional political fallout and diplomacy
The strikes have heightened tensions with regional governments and drawn criticism from foreign ministers and regional observers who warn the use of lethal force in international waters can destabilise relations and maritime safety; for example, France’s foreign minister publicly questioned the legality of the operations [6]. Venezuela mobilised forces and publicly condemned the U.S. presence, while other South American states have watched closely as a major U.S. carrier strike group and other assets deployed to the area [11] [7].
5. Independent assessments and watchdogs: numbers and classification
Media outlets and monitoring groups have produced varying counts: PBS and other outlets reported dozens killed in the first months; Wikipedia and NPR collations by November cite at least 37 to more than 70 dead depending on cutoffs, while UN statements reference “over 60” or specific counts of 64 killed in the period the experts reviewed — underscoring discrepancies in public accounting and the limits of open-source verification [5] [1] [2] [4].
6. Human-rights vs. law-enforcement frames: core disagreement
UN human-rights officials emphasise that drug trafficking is conventionally a law-enforcement issue constrained by human‑rights rules on lethal force, arguing the information publicly released does not show an imminent threat justifying summary killings at sea [3]. The administration frames the campaign as a novel application of force against designated “narcoterrorists,” a classification many analysts and legal commentators say does not automatically remove usual legal constraints on the use of lethal force [9] [8].
7. Why this matters beyond the immediate strikes
Observers warn a precedent of extraterritorial lethal interdiction without clear legal basis could normalise unilateral uses of force by other states and erode maritime law and norms, with potential blowback if strikes expand beyond ships at sea or draw in regional militaries [12] [13]. Human-rights bodies, legal scholars and some U.S. lawmakers say accountability and transparent legal justification are essential to avoid long-term strategic and legal costs [4] [10].
Limitations: available sources in this brief cover the U.S. campaign and international responses up to November 2025 but do not provide exhaustive incident-level forensic reports or outcomes of any formal investigations; available sources do not mention completed impartial prosecutions or fact-finding missions resolving legal responsibility [4] [10].