The War on “Drug Boats”: How Lethal Maritime Strikes Push the Boundaries of International Law - Global Policy Journal

Report Title: The War on “Drug Boats”: How Lethal Maritime Strikes Push the Boundaries of International Law

Source: Global Policy Journal “GP Opinion” section

Date of Publication: November 17, 2025

Author: Jean-Pierre Murray. Jean-Pierre Murray is an Assistant Professor of Government (International Relations) at Claremont McKenna College. His work focuses on critical security studies; the securitization of South–South migration; global governance; international law; and Latin America and the Caribbean.  

Introduction: Jean-Pierre Murray examines the legality of recent U.S. strikes on suspected drug trafficking boats, arguing that the shift from interdiction to kinetic armed force potentially undermines sovereignty, violates human rights norms, and exceeds lawful use-of-force limits under international law. 

On November 4th, the U.S. defense secretary announced the 16th military strike on a suspected drug boat, bringing the total casualties to 67 since the first one on September 2nd, 2025. While some view these attacks as part of a broader geopolitical escalation with Venezuela, the administration has maintained that this is primarily a counternarcotics operation. The framing of drug trafficking as a national security threat is not new. In 1971, President Nixon declared that America’s “public enemy number one is drug abuse,” announcing an “all-out offensive.” That campaign, framed as the “war on drugs”, prioritized supply-side interdiction and criminalization over public health. Law enforcement and the military became central actors, blurring the lines between domestic policing and national defense.

Today, that legacy continues in troubling new forms, most recently, in U.S. policy authorizing the bombing of suspected drug boats in Caribbean waters and in the eastern Pacific. In an international context of fundamental changes and increasing flux, where some have asked whether international law itself is under threat due to egregious breaches, lack of enforcement, or non-compliance, I ask whether this policy can stand to scrutiny under international law. I argue that irrespective of the motivations, the policy collapses the distinction between law enforcement and warfare, undermining both the rule of law and the humanitarian norms that protect civilian life. It has shifted from a rhetorical war on drugs to a kinetic one, without meaningful grounding in international law. 

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in Latin America, especially in Colombia, militarized local law enforcement under the banner of the war on drugs. Drug trafficking was framed as transnational organized crime, and then as a national security threat, inviting extraordinary measures. This “securitization” of drugs isn’t unique to the Americas. In 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declared open war on drug users, encouraging citizens to kill “any known addicts.” That policy led to thousands of extrajudicial killings and, in 2025, an ICC arrest warrant for Duterte for crimes against humanity. While Duterte’s actions were domestic, the U.S. bombing of drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific raises other international legal questions about jurisdiction, sovereignty, human rights, and the lawful use of force.

Neither the declaration of war nor the use of emergency powers suspends fundamental human rights and humanitarian norms. Even in war, the principle of distinction under international humanitarian law, notably the Geneva Conventions, protects civilians. A drug boat, however illicit its cargo, is not a military target. Those on board remain civilians especially if there is no clear way of identifying them as combatants – or in this case, suspected gang members. From a human rights perspective, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is equally clear. The right to life, protected under international law, cannot be suspended even under a declared national security emergency. Emergencies do not justify taking a life on the mere assumption of criminality. This is both arbitrary and unlawful. The same applies to due process. Every individual has the right to a fair trial before being deprived of his liberty, and even more so, his life. Drug trafficking is not a capital crime that would warrant a death sentence, and even if it were, punishment still requires trial and conviction. The bombings, therefore, would be extrajudicial punishment.

A link to the entire Global Policy Journal’s “GP Opinion” piece can be found here.