On 1 September 2025, a Venezuelan boat was destroyed by US military forces, a United Nations member and a leading member of the UN Security Council, in the international waters of the Caribbean Sea, leaving 11 people dead. 

The vessel was allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua criminal group and drug trafficking. However, the operation was conducted without multilateral approval or a formal self-defence claim, and there was no evidence that they had been transporting drugs or linked to drug cartels. In a subsequent series of military strikes, the US forces killed six more men on a boat in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela. This was the fifth known attack by the US military on such boats. Overall, there have been 15 strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific since the US began its campaign in September, resulting in the deaths of 64 people.

The US military has now killed 64 people on the spot, without warnings or justifications, as if they were enemy combatants in a war zone and not criminal suspects. The U.S. military did not identify the nationalities of the people who were killed or the names of specific drug cartels, criminal gangs, or illicit narcoterrorism networks they were supposedly connected to. 

Those incidents reignited a debate that extends beyond technicalities: Can a state, a member of the United Nations (UN), exercise such deadly force outside its jurisdiction without breaching international law? However, international law strictly limits the use of force against foreign-flagged speedboats or vessels in international waters, on the high seas. Generally, such actions are unlawful unless a specific legal justification exists, and even then, force must be a last resort, necessary, and appropriate. 

Proportionality and procedure 

Essentially, before any force is used, standard international practice requires issuing auditory or visual signals to direct the vessel to stop. If the vessel does not stop, a warning shot across the bow is generally the next step. 

Shooting into the vessel with the intent to sink is considered an extreme measure, generally only permissible as a last resort in cases of imminent threat to life or as part of an actual armed conflict. And, in fact, no armed conflict has been declared yet in the Caribbean Sea. Actions that result in the loss of life without an imminent threat are considered extrajudicial killings under international human rights law. 

Fundamentally, under the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a warship may board a foreign vessel on the high seas if there are reasonable grounds of suspicion of piracy, the slave trade, unauthorised broadcasting, being without nationality (stateless), or being of the same nationality as the warship, despite flying a foreign flag. 

Even in these cases, the law requires boarding and inspection first; it does not automatically permit sinking the vessel. Notably also, the use of force according to international law, during hot pursuit, is limited to what is unavoidable, reasonable, and necessary to effect the arrest, and all efforts must be made to ensure life is not endangered. 

Additionally, a state seeking to justify shooting at a vessel would generally need to meet one of the following criteria, such as, self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter; UN Security Council authorisation under V11 of the Charter; flag state consent; or specific international crimes (right of visit) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 

General principles 

In general, shootings at a foreign vessel in international waters as a law enforcement measure is considered as unlawful, with some strict rules governing any potential use of force, under the following fundamental legal concepts. Freedom of Navigation: The high seas (international waters) are beyond the sovereignty of any single state. Vessels are generally under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state whose flag they fly. Prohibition of Force: The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force between states (Article 2(4). Military force is only permitted in exceptional situations. Law Enforcement: Law enforcement activities at sea, even if the vessel’s activities are illegal (e.g., drug smuggling, illegal fishing), must prioritise non-lethal measures and avoid force as much as possible. 

In conclusion, the US’ aggressive actions that led to loss of life without an immediate threat are regarded as extrajudicial killings under international human rights law. Extrajudicial killings are illegal and punishable under both domestic and international law. They are seen as a serious violation of the fundamental right to life and the right to due process. 

The US gunboat diplomacy against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reminds us of the age of imperialism in the 19th century, when Western imperialist powers used their naval strength to force weaker nations into making concessions or to meet foreign aggressors’ political and economic goals or policy objectives. This evil practice or outright gangsterism persists today, shaping the behaviour of weaker states. A sad story indeed. 

In the final analysis, the international community should oppose and take immediate action to stop the U.S.A. from using armed force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This principle is a cornerstone of modern international law and relations, embodied in the United Nations Charter. 

*Maj. Gen. (RTD) J. B Tjivikua is a Criminal Intelligence Analyst