What rules of engagement and use-of-force policies apply to US forces during interdictions at sea?
Executive summary
U.S. maritime interdictions are governed by a mix of domestic regulations, DoD/Service doctrine and international law: commanders retain an inherent right of self‑defense and must use only force necessary to remove a threat, while domestic rules (e.g., Coast Guard protection zones and Title 10 authorities) and naval operational law shape specific actions [1] [2] [3]. Recent reporting and expert commentary show intense debate over applying wartime targeting rules to counternarcotics interdictions and allegations that some strikes exceeded legal limits [4] [5].
1. What legal frameworks apply: overlapping regimes, not a single rulebook
U.S. forces at sea operate under multiple, overlapping legal regimes: international law of the sea and the law of naval operations; U.S. statutory authorities and service regulations; and operational rules of engagement (ROE) and commanders’ handbooks. Academic and naval analysis emphasize that military forces on the high seas “fall under multiple legal regimes,” and commanders must weigh both domestic law and the law of the sea when planning interdictions [1] [6].
2. Core principle: inherent right and obligation of self‑defense
Naval commanders “always retain the inherent right and obligation of self‑defense,” permitting force in response to hostile acts against U.S. ships, forces, and in some cases U.S. persons or property — but responses must remove or eliminate the threat proportionately [1]. The naval law handbook and scholarship reiterate that self‑defense is central to use‑of‑force decisions at sea [6] [1].
3. Use‑of‑force must be tailored to the objective: military necessity and proportionality
Doctrinal and legal commentary underline that only the degree of force necessary to achieve a concrete military objective is lawful; this principle derives from the Hague Regulations and Protocol I principles and is cited in expert critiques of recent strikes on suspected smuggling vessels [4]. Academic analysis of maritime force limits likewise stresses proportionality and the availability of non‑forcible alternatives in interdiction contexts [6] [4].
4. Domestic rules and operational instruments — what commanders actually use
Operational actions at sea draw on U.S. statutes (Title 10 authorities for the Navy), Coast Guard regulations (e.g., protection zones and navigable waters rules in 33 CFR), and established interagency tasking such as Joint Interagency Task Force South (JIATF‑S) for counternarcotics work [3] [2] [7]. These domestic instruments define jurisdictional reach, safety obligations, and when military forces coordinate or cede authority to law enforcement like the Coast Guard [2] [7].
5. Practice vs. principle: controversy over applying wartime targeting to drugs
Experts and commentators dispute whether laws of armed conflict or criminal law‑enforcement models should govern counternarcotics interdictions at sea. Some argue applying “laws of war” to civilian drug interdiction is incoherent and that lethal strikes on suspected smugglers—when non‑lethal interdiction was available—fail legal tests of necessity [4] [8]. Reporting and legal analysis have raised specific allegations that orders and strikes in 2025 exceeded lawful bounds, prompting scrutiny [5] [9].
6. Operational constraints: rescuing shipwrecked and safety obligations
Even during hostilities, naval doctrine requires taking “all possible measures, consistent with the security of their forces, to search for and rescue the shipwrecked” after engagements at sea; this duty can limit post‑strike behavior and informs ROE and post‑action obligations [10] [1]. Critics point to alleged failures to honor those duties in recent incidents as evidence of ROE or command lapses [5].
7. Political and institutional drivers shape ROE and their application
Rules of engagement are not purely technical legal artifacts; they are set and adjusted amid policy choices and political directives. The decision to authorize military force against drug cartels and the regional naval buildup in 2025 altered operational posture and, according to reporting, expanded authorities for sea operations — a shift that sparked legal and ethical debate [11] [7]. Analysts note institutional incentives — rapid interdiction results, force protection, and political messaging — can push commanders toward kinetic options [7] [8].
8. Limits of current reporting and remaining questions
Available sources document the legal frameworks in general terms and public controversies over specific 2025 strikes, but they do not publish a consolidated, detailed text of the specific ROE used in each interdiction. For example, exact ROE language, commander‑to‑commander directives, and internal legal opinions about particular strikes are not included in these sources (not found in current reporting). Accountability debates continue in public fora and legal commentary [5] [4].
Conclusion: U.S. interdictions at sea are governed by layered international and domestic law emphasizing self‑defense, necessity and proportionality, but real‑world application is contested — particularly when military targeting doctrines intersect with law‑enforcement missions, as recent events and expert critiques make plain [1] [4] [5].