“`html
U.S. officials have reported conducting a series of strikes against vessels in the Caribbean Sea, resulting in the deaths of multiple individuals alleged to be drug traffickers.
President Donald Trump announced the first such operation in September, stating that U.S. forces had destroyed a boat originating from Venezuela. He identified the vessel as being operated by the Tren de Aragua cartel and carrying narcotics destined for the United States.
Subsequent announcements of similar strikes have been issued in recent weeks. These announcements have been accompanied by limited grainy footage, but have lacked substantial evidence of drug trafficking and have provided few details regarding the identities of those aboard the targeted vessels.
Officials in the Trump administration have asserted that these actions are acts of self-defense aimed at disrupting the flow of illicit drugs into the U.S. However, the strikes have drawn condemnation from regional stakeholders.
In one instance, the President of Colombia contested the U.S. claim that a targeted vessel was Venezuelan, asserting that it was “Colombian with Colombian citizens inside” – a claim the White House has refuted.
Following the initial strike, BBC Verify consulted with experts in international and maritime law. Several of these experts suggested that the U.S. may have acted unlawfully in attacking the vessel.
While the U.S. is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, legal advisors to the U.S. military have previously stated that the U.S. should “act in a manner consistent with its provisions”.
Under the convention, signatory nations agree not to interfere with vessels operating in international waters, subject to certain exceptions. These exceptions include “hot pursuit,” where a vessel is pursued from a country’s waters onto the high seas.
“Force can be used to stop a boat but generally this should be non-lethal measures,” stated Prof. Luke Moffett of Queens University Belfast.
Prof. Moffett further noted that the use of aggressive tactics must be “reasonable and necessary in self-defence where there is immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life to enforcement officials,” adding that the U.S. actions were likely “unlawful under the law of the sea.”
Experts have also raised concerns about whether the killings of alleged members of the Tren de Aragua cartel could violate international law governing the use of force.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter permits countries to use force when under attack or in self-defense. President Trump has previously accused the Tren de Aragua cartel of engaging in irregular warfare against the U.S., and the State Department has designated the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.
Following the initial strike, Prof. Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin told BBC Verify that the American action “stretches the meaning of the term beyond its breaking point.”
“The fact that US officials describe the individuals killed by the US strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets,” Prof. Becker stated. “The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organisation.”
Prof. Moffett added: “Labelling everyone a terrorist does not make them a lawful target and enables states to side-step international law.”
A leaked memo reportedly indicated that the Trump administration had determined that the U.S. was in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels.
Responding to a fifth strike in October, Dame Law School Prof. Mary Ellen O’Connell told BBC Verify that “no credible facts or legal principles have come to light to justify these attacks.”
“The only relevant law for peace is international law – that is the law of treaties, human rights and statehood,” Prof. O’Connell wrote in an emailed statement.
However, U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have defended the action, which has also been applauded by Republicans in Congress.
When questioned about the same strike, a White House official told BBC Verify that President Trump had authorized it after the boat departed Venezuela, crewed by members of the Tren de Aragua. The official added that the president was committed to using all means to prevent drugs from reaching the U.S.
The Pentagon declined to share the legal advice it obtained before carrying out the strike.
In one strike carried out on October 16, there were two survivors – a Colombian and an Ecuadorian, who the U.S. government says were repatriated for “detention and prosecution.”
Questions have also been raised regarding whether the White House complied with U.S. law in authorizing the strikes. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war.
However, Article II, which outlines the President’s powers, states that “the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army,” and some constitutional experts suggest that this provision grants the president the authority to authorize strikes against military targets. Trump administration sources have previously cited this provision when defending U.S. strikes on Iran.
It remains unclear whether that provision extends to the use of force against non-state actors such as drug cartels.
Rumen Cholakov, an expert in U.S. constitutional law at King’s College London, told BBC Verify that since 9/11, U.S. presidents have relied on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force Act (AUMF) when carrying out strikes against groups responsible for the attacks.
“Its scope has been expanded consistently in subsequent administrations,” he added. “It is not immediately obvious that drug cartels such as Tren de Aragua would be within the President’s AUMF powers, but that might be what ‘narco-terrorists’ is hinting at.”
Questions also remain as to whether Trump complied with the War Powers Resolution, which mandates that the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities.”
Despite some Republicans in Congress reportedly having anxieties about the strikes, the Senate defeated a resolution in October that would have required the Trump administration to seek the approval of Congress before any further attacks.
The Venezuelan government has reacted to the strikes with anger. President Nicolas Maduro denies American accusations that he is involved with drugs trafficking.
The strikes come amid reports that the U.S. has deployed naval warships to the region in support of anti-narcotics operations against Venezuela.
Using satellite imagery, images from social media, and information from publicly available trackers on vessels, we’ve identified 14 US military ships in the region.
These include guided missile destroyers and amphibious assault ships.
We also located a number of military planes and drones in Puerto Rico.
Trump also acknowledged in October that he has authorised the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela.
The president – who has long sought to oust Maduro – has authorised a US$50m reward for any information leading to his arrest. The Venezuelan leader claimed victory in last year’s elections, widely viewed as rigged by international observers.
Additional reporting by Lucy Gilder
What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
The US vice-president’s visit comes after a flare-up of violence between Israel and Hamas that threatened to derail the 12-day-old truce.
Christopher Moynihan, who had been sentenced to 21 months for the riot, allegedly said Hakeem Jeffries “must be eliminated”.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejects the idea of halting the conflict at the current contact line.
Ecuadorian officials say they found no evidence the man had committed a crime, and so had freed him.
A US appeals court’s decision halts a judge’s order that blocked the deployment while a challenge to Trump’s action plays out.
“`