News|ConflictExperts say US boat strikes are illegal killings. Can they be stopped?At least 86 people have been killed in strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats that experts call illegal killings.
As of early September, the United States has conducted at least 22 reported military operations targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels near the coast of Latin America. These actions have resulted in at least 86 fatalities.
As of early September, the United States has conducted at least 22 reported military operations targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels near the coast of Latin America. These actions have resulted in at least 86 fatalities.
International legal experts have raised concerns about the legality of these strikes, suggesting they could constitute extrajudicial killings. The United Nations special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights has criticized the actions as violations of international law.
The US Congress holds the authority to limit military actions through legislative measures or funding restrictions. Military personnel may also choose not to execute orders they perceive as unlawful. Despite these potential checks, legislative efforts to require congressional approval for the campaign have been unsuccessful. Two bills aimed at imposing such restrictions were narrowly defeated in the Senate in October and November.
Reports have emerged about potential reconsiderations of intelligence-sharing agreements with the US by countries such as the United Kingdom and Colombia. However, officials from these nations have downplayed these reports.
International legal experts have raised concerns about the legality of these strikes, suggesting they could constitute extrajudicial killings.
Several international laws prohibit extrajudicial killings, including Article Two of the UN Charter, which restricts the use of force except in self-defense, and the Geneva Conventions, which protect non-combatants. The administration's use of tactics such as "double-tap" strikes has further intensified legal scrutiny.
The US administration maintains that its operations are in line with both domestic and international law, claiming the targeted vessels were involved in drug trafficking activities that pose a threat to national security.
The continued military actions without explicit congressional approval have raised concerns about the expansion of presidential military authority. Historical precedents, such as the post-9/11 authorizations for military force, have been cited as contributing factors to this trend.
Some lawmakers have questioned the administration's justification, with a minority opposing the strikes. The broader reluctance among Congress to challenge the executive reflects ongoing debates about the balance of power in US foreign policy decision-making.
A recent poll indicated that public opinion is divided on the military operations, with a slight majority expressing approval. Legal experts warn that the normalization of such military actions against criminal activities could have significant implications for international law and governance.
Based on reporting by Al Jazeera.