Crews, Drugs, and Boats: Why They’re Untouchable
The recent attack on a vessel on September 2, has raised intense scrutiny regarding the legality of targeting both the individuals onboard and the drugs being transported. Key players involved, such as the U.S. administration and various legal experts, have contributed to the ongoing debate surrounding Operation Southern Spear, the operation associated with this incident. The controversy intensified as reports indicated that two survivors of the initial strike were later killed, leading to allegations of potential war crimes.
Key Incident: September 2 Attack
The September 2 attack involved a boat purportedly carrying drugs and eleven individuals, two of whom survived the first strike. Despite clinging to capsized remnants, these individuals were targeted again, prompting accusations of war crimes due to their defenseless state.
Legal Framework: International Human Rights Law vs. Law of Armed Conflict
At the heart of the debate is the applicable legal framework. The U.S. administration claims that actions against drug cartels fall under a non-international armed conflict (NIAC). However, many legal experts refute this assertion, emphasizing that there exists no effective military engagement between the United States and organizations like Tren de Aragua.
Criteria for Non-International Armed Conflict
Non-international armed conflict requires substantial armed violence and organization between state and non-state actors. The factors include:
- Intensity of conflict
- Organizational structure of the involved parties
- Continuous military engagement
Experts argue that the U.S. actions against drug cartels do not meet the criteria necessary for NIAC, as these cartels typically operate as criminal entities rather than military groups.
Targeting Standards in Maritime Operations
Under international law, especially international human rights law (IHRL), lethal force may only be applied under specific circumstances, primarily when there is an imminent threat to life. Reports on the September 2 attack suggest no such imminent threat existed.
Direct Participation and Legal Justifications
Only individuals who directly participate in hostilities can be lawfully targeted during NIAC. Definitions of direct participation require an immediate connection to combat activities, which, according to current analysis, does not apply to drug transportation activities. Furthermore, the concept of war-sustaining objects used in some legal discussions fails to apply since drug trafficking does not constitute an active conflict against the U.S.
Conclusion: Lack of Justification for Targeting
The U.S. administration’s justification for the attack on September 2 lacks a solid legal foundation. The prevailing frameworks—both IHRL and LOAC—indicate that there was no legal justification for targeting the vessels or individuals onboard. This incident highlights broader implications regarding the legality and ethics of maritime drug interdiction tactics employed by the United States.
In summary, the targeting of crews, drugs, and boats during the September 2 incident poses complex legal questions. As debates continue, clarity on the lawful parameters of such military operations is necessary to uphold human rights and legal standards across international waters.
