Are U.S. Strikes on Drug Boats Legal Under International Law? (In 2 minutes)
By Yusra Suedi (PhD, Assistant Professor of International Law at University of Manchester)
Hey SAILers!
The United States has carried out strikes on boats allegedly carrying drugs, arguing that it is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. This justification relies on the Bush administration’s post-9/11 “War on Terror” doctrine.
To assess whether these strikes are legal under international law, we need to ask two questions:
Is the use of force itself legal here? (i.e., When can a country launch an attack on a group?)
Could they be justified as part of a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between a state and an armed group — here, the drug cartels?
1. Is the U.S. Use of Force Legal?
No.
Under the UN Charter, states cannot use force (Article 2(4)) except:
a) under UN Security Council authorization (Chapter VII), or
c) in self-defense (Article 51).
The Security Council has not authorized this, and drug trafficking, even if harmful, does not amount to an “armed attack” that would justify self-defense under Article 51.
Therefore, the strikes are not lawful under the rules on the use of force.
2. Could It Be Legal as a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) with Drug Cartels?
[International law separates conflicts between countries (‘international armed conflicts’) from those between a country and an armed group (‘non-international armed conflicts’), since different sets of rules apply to each.]
The answer to this question is no, for two reasons.
First, organization.
For a NIAC to exist, the non-state group must be organized (see here, at 456-78) — with a clear command structure and the capacity to conduct sustained military operations. Drug cartels are criminal networks, not belligerent armed groups, and lack the military organization required under international law.
Second, intensity.
The violence must be sustained and intense, not a series of isolated criminal acts (see here, at 562). Drug-related violence, while severe, remains sporadic and criminal in nature, not the kind of continuous armed hostilities that trigger the laws of war.
Because Trump isn’t in a NIAC with drug cartels in the first place, he can’t claim that his strikes form part of a larger or global one. Trump’s argument mirrors President Bush’s post-9/11 expansion of the concept of armed conflict to include a global fight against non-state actors like al-Qaeda, not confined to one battlefield. That “global war” idea allowed the U.S. to apply the laws of war to terrorist groups worldwide — but it was not widely accepted as a lawful NIAC under international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and most governments rejected this interpretation. So it wouldn’t stand here either.
Conclusion: These strikes are illegal under international law.