The US has carried out a series of strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea, killing multiple drug traffickers and leaving many questions about the legality of these actions. According to US officials, the strikes were conducted under the guise of self-defence against vessels carrying illicit drugs to the US.
However, international law experts say that the US may have acted illegally in attacking the vessels. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prohibits countries from interfering with vessels operating in international waters, except in limited circumstances. The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS, but its military's legal advisors have said that it should act in a manner consistent with the convention.
Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, countries can resort to force when under attack and deploying their military in self-defence. However, some experts argue that the US is stretching the meaning of this term beyond its breaking point by describing individuals killed in the strikes as "narco-terrorists" rather than lawful military targets.
The use of such language has been criticized for enabling states to sidestep international law. Furthermore, questions have been raised about whether the White House complied with US law in authorizing the strikes, as the US constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war.
It is also unclear whether the president's powers under Article II extend to the use of force against non-state actors such as drug cartels. Some experts argue that since 9/11, US presidents have relied on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) when carrying out strikes against groups responsible for attacks, but it is not immediately obvious whether drug cartels would be within the President's AUMF powers.
The Venezuelan government has reacted to the strikes with anger, denying American accusations that they are involved in drugs trafficking. The US has deployed naval warships to the region in support of anti-narcotics operations against Venezuela, and there have been reports of military planes and drones in Puerto Rico.
The legitimacy of these actions raises concerns about the role of the US in regional affairs and its treatment of Venezuela's government.
However, international law experts say that the US may have acted illegally in attacking the vessels. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prohibits countries from interfering with vessels operating in international waters, except in limited circumstances. The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS, but its military's legal advisors have said that it should act in a manner consistent with the convention.
Under Article 2(4) of the UN charter, countries can resort to force when under attack and deploying their military in self-defence. However, some experts argue that the US is stretching the meaning of this term beyond its breaking point by describing individuals killed in the strikes as "narco-terrorists" rather than lawful military targets.
The use of such language has been criticized for enabling states to sidestep international law. Furthermore, questions have been raised about whether the White House complied with US law in authorizing the strikes, as the US constitution says that only Congress has the power to declare war.
It is also unclear whether the president's powers under Article II extend to the use of force against non-state actors such as drug cartels. Some experts argue that since 9/11, US presidents have relied on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) when carrying out strikes against groups responsible for attacks, but it is not immediately obvious whether drug cartels would be within the President's AUMF powers.
The Venezuelan government has reacted to the strikes with anger, denying American accusations that they are involved in drugs trafficking. The US has deployed naval warships to the region in support of anti-narcotics operations against Venezuela, and there have been reports of military planes and drones in Puerto Rico.
The legitimacy of these actions raises concerns about the role of the US in regional affairs and its treatment of Venezuela's government.
... US is like a rogue state right now. They're just making up rules as they go along. I mean, attacking boats on international waters? That's a no-brainer. It's not exactly self-defence when you know the people on those boats are trying to smuggle stuff.
? That's just propaganda at this point. It's like they're trying to convince everyone that they're above the law. Newsflash: they're not.
? They're like "what are you talking about, America?" And the US is all like "you're involved in drug trafficking". Come on.
, so like the us is saying they're just defending themselves from drugs but international law says nope you cant just attack anyone on the high seas 
and now venezuela is all upset and stuff, and ppl are questioning whether the president has the power to just start wars without congress saying ok first 
also it's kinda sus that they're calling these people "narco-terrorists" instead of just saying they're drug traffickers 
and what's with the us not being part of uncos? 
.
. I'm all for taking down drug cartels and stuff, but using terms like that to justify a military strike? That's not exactly reassuring.
. The international community is watching, and I hope they don't end up getting burned in the crossfire 
.
so what's goin on here? the us is basically sayin they're in self defense, but international law experts are all like hold up wait a minute you can't just kill ppl on boats in the middle of the sea without doin due diligence first 
.
.
Just feels like the US is just setting a bad precedent here...
if you wanna enforce international law, don't just do it because you feel like it, follow the rules or make a new one. and btw, what's with all these 'narco-terrorists' labels? sounds like some kinda propaganda to me 
. If they're claiming it's self-defence, shouldn't they be transparent about who exactly is being targeted? Are we just supposed to take them at face value because they say so? 
It feels like they're just making it up as they go along. 
The fact that Venezuela is getting aggroed doesn't help - it's just going to make things worse 
it's like they're trying to rewrite their own rulebook here.
. I don't think we should be questioning the president's power or anything, but at the same time, there are some serious concerns about whether these actions were legit 
. It feels like the US is just wading into regional affairs without really thinking through the consequences 
