A vessel in Bahamian waters with fishermen in the southern Bahamas in search of a good catch of snappers could be vulnerable and unlucky being on a vessel in the Caribbean Sea if the Trump administration in the United States does not change its policy and respect international law.

We must endorse the Human Rights Watch Briefing on the unlawful U.S. strikes in the Americas.  It is called “a dangerous assault on International Law.”

The statement says, “The Trump administration has ordered a series of lethal military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and nearby parts of the Pacific Ocean, claiming they were carrying “narco-traffickers” threatening United States (US) security. It has provided no evidence that those targeted posed any imminent threat to US nationals or anyone else.

These operations mark a profound and alarming erosion of US respect for international law. The strikes are not being carried out pursuant to any armed conflict.  To the contrary, the strikes represent a deliberate attempt by the US executive branch to redefine alleged criminal activity as warfare in order to normalize extrajudicial killings beyond US borders.

As of this writing, the US had carried out at least 21 airstrikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, killing at least 83 people. The identities of most of the victims remain unknown. There is no evidence that they posed an imminent threat to any person, and the US government does not claim otherwise. 

There is no armed conflict involving the US and alleged drug traffickers. A presidential declaration, as was sent by President Trump to the US Congress in October, cannot create an armed conflict where none exists.

These strikes are therefore extrajudicial killings — unlawful executions that violate the fundamental rights to life and due process, guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the US has ratified.  Under human rights law standards, officials engaging in law enforcement, including military personnel, must seek to minimize injury and preserve human life. They may use lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury. 

The US authorities made no effort to minimize harm and have not sought to demonstrate that the individuals aboard the vessels posed any imminent threat to life. Nor were nonlethal alternatives — such as interdiction or arrest — ever attempted.

International humanitarian law, which governs the conduct of hostilities during armed conflict, does not apply in this context. The US is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or with the alleged criminal groups involved. 

Under both US and international law, those accused of crimes should be arrested and tried — not summarily executed.  The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, along with several UN Human Rights Special Rapporteurs and international legal experts have rightly condemned these acts as violations of international human rights law. 

The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (adopted in 2001) provide that a state bears responsibility under international law if it “aids or assists” another state to commit an internationally wrongful act “with knowledge of the circumstances.”  

At this point, it would be hard to claim participants in Campaign Martillo do not have knowledge of the broader circumstances. This places them at substantial risk of complicity for extrajudicial killings. These countries should conduct meaningful due diligence to consider whether they need to take steps to mitigate this risk, including if appropriate, by circumscribing the nature of any future information sharing with the US.  According to the International Law Commission, “the assisting State will only be responsible to the extent that its own conduct has caused or contributed to the internationally wrongful act.”   While some governments have said that they have been told that the US is using its own intelligence to guide the strikes, it is not clear whether such assurances are credible.

Countries should proactively perform due diligence in their cooperation with the US in order to shield themselves from complicity for the strikes.

The strikes have taken place in the context of the Trump administration’s dismantling of internal legal oversight mechanisms within the US military. In February, the administration removed senior judge advocate general officers — military lawyers tasked with reviewing the legality of operations — from critical decision-making roles, and significantly relaxed oversight of airstrikes and special operations raids, allowing commanders greater latitude to authorize lethal force without the multi-layered legal vetting previously required. This erosion of safeguards increases the risk of unlawful attacks and undermines the military’s ability to uphold its obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law.

The Human Rights Council has a critical role to play in upholding global norms against extrajudicial killings, and defending the integrity of international law.  Staying silent about unlawful killings, risks normalizing them and weakening the very system that protects states, particularly small and medium states, from arbitrary force.

Member and observer states of the UN Human Rights Council should condemn the unlawful strikes and call for an end to unlawful practices and these serious human rights violations, emphasizing that those accused of crimes such as drug trafficking are to be investigated, lawfully arrested, and brought before a court. 

Some states in the region have explicitly or implicitly spoken out on the US strikes. CARICOM governments said in a statement that they are committed to fighting narcotrafficking but that it should be done through “international cooperation and within international law.”  At the recent UN General Assembly, President Lula of Brazil condemned the “use of lethal force in situations that are not armed conflict as ‘executing people without trial.’” The governments of Colombia and Mexico have also both explicitly criticized the strikes.

Human Rights Council member and observer states should:

* Urge the United States immediately to halt unlawful strikes, commit to international legal norms and rights-respecting practices to address crime and violence;

* Support the calls of regional bodies (e.g. CARICOM and the OAS) and governments in Latin America and the Caribbean to press the United States to adhere to international law;

* Publicly clarify that no state should participate in or cooperate with such unlawful operations. States otherwise risk complicity in violations of international human rights law;

* Proactively promote effective and rights-respecting security policies that prioritize focusing on strengthening the justice response to organized crime with third countries, and effective responses to social conditions;

* Call for independent and impartial investigations into the strikes, including into evidence of drug trafficking, and into the identities of the victims and survivors;

* Issue public statements – individually and collectively – affirming that the response to international organized crime should be pursued in full compliance with international human rights standards, that the US is not a party to any armed conflict in the Caribbean Sea and neighbouring parts of the Pacific Ocean, that the laws of war do not apply to alleged criminal activity, and that the deaths of people in these strikes constitute extrajudicial killings;

* Raise these violations in bilateral and multilateral fora, including the UN Human Rights Council; and* Encourage the UN High Commissioner to brief the Council on this issue in an inter-sessional meeting before the end of 2025.”