Introduction
This essay examines the legality of two distinct actions taken by the United States in August 2025 and thereafter, as reported by Reuters, within the framework of international law governing the use of force. The first action involves the deployment of a significant flotilla of ships, military personnel, and fighter jets in the south Caribbean, off the coast of Venezuela, purportedly to combat drug trafficking. The second concerns subsequent kinetic strikes on small vessels in the Caribbean Sea, resulting in loss of life and property damage, alongside the labelling of the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organisation and the doubling of a bounty on President Nicolás Maduro. This analysis will assess these actions against the principles of the United Nations Charter, customary international law, and evolving norms on the use of force over centuries. By exploring the legal basis for such interventions, particularly in the context of non-state actors and transnational crime, the essay aims to characterise the US actions as either consistent with or divergent from international legal standards.
Historical Context of the Use of Force in International Law
The rules governing the use of force have evolved significantly since the Westphalian system of state sovereignty emerged in 1648. Historically, states exercised relatively unrestrained rights to wage war, often under the guise of self-preservation or territorial expansion (Brownlie, 2008). However, the 20th century marked a shift towards restriction, culminating in the UN Charter of 1945, which prohibits the use of force under Article 2(4) except in cases of self-defence (Article 51) or with Security Council authorisation (Chapter VII). This framework prioritises state sovereignty and collective security, aiming to limit unilateral actions by powerful states (Cassese, 2005). Furthermore, customary international law has developed alongside treaty law, requiring that any use of force be necessary and proportionate, as articulated in the Caroline Incident of 1837, which set a precedent for anticipatory self-defence (Gray, 2018). These principles are critical when assessing modern interventions, particularly those involving non-state actors or transnational issues like drug trafficking.
Analysis of the US Deployment in August 2025
The US deployment of a large military presence in the south Caribbean in August 2025, described as “significantly larger than usual,” raises questions about its compliance with international law. Ostensibly aimed at combating drug trafficking, this action does not explicitly fit within the exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force under the UN Charter. Deploying military assets near another state’s territorial waters—arguably within Venezuela’s sphere of influence—could be interpreted as a show of force or even a threat, which Article 2(4) seeks to prevent (Brownlie, 2008). However, if the US argues that this deployment serves a preventive purpose linked to national security, it might invoke anticipatory self-defence. The legal threshold for such a claim, as derived from the Caroline Incident, requires a clear, imminent threat and proportionality in response (Gray, 2018). Given that drug trafficking, while a serious issue, does not constitute an armed attack as traditionally understood under Article 51, this justification appears weak.
Moreover, the deployment’s scale suggests an intent beyond mere policing, potentially undermining Venezuela’s sovereignty. Without UN Security Council approval or an invitation from Venezuela, the action lacks a clear legal basis. Indeed, international law prioritises cooperation over unilateral intervention in matters like transnational crime, as evidenced by frameworks such as the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, which emphasises mutual legal assistance rather than military action (UNODC, 1988). Therefore, while the deployment may not constitute an overt use of force, it arguably infringes on the spirit of international legal norms by escalating tensions in a sensitive geopolitical region.
Assessment of Subsequent Kinetic Strikes and Related Actions
The subsequent US kinetic strikes on small vessels in the Caribbean Sea, resulting in loss of life and property damage, represent a clearer violation of the prohibition on the use of force. These strikes, justified as targeting drug traffickers, including members of the Tren de Aragua network, labelled as a terrorist organisation, do not meet the criteria for lawful military action under international law. First, the use of lethal force against non-state actors in international waters or near another state’s territory requires a robust legal basis, which is absent here. The designation of Tren de Aragua as a terrorist group by the US is a unilateral act and does not confer international legitimacy for military strikes without broader recognition or Security Council endorsement (Cassese, 2005).
Second, the principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of jus ad bellum, appears to be breached. The loss of life and damage caused by the strikes must be weighed against the threat posed by drug trafficking vessels, which are unlikely to constitute an imminent danger equivalent to an armed attack (Gray, 2018). Furthermore, the doubling of a bounty on President Maduro and labelling him the head of a drug trafficking network introduces a personal dimension to the conflict, potentially violating norms against targeting heads of state, as protected under customary international law and the principle of sovereign equality (Brownlie, 2008). These actions collectively suggest a punitive rather than defensive intent, further eroding their legal standing. Therefore, the strikes and associated policies likely contravene both treaty and customary international law by failing to adhere to necessity, proportionality, and collective security mechanisms.
Broader Implications for International Law
The US actions in 2025 highlight a growing tension between state sovereignty and the expanding scope of national security justifications in the use of force. Over recent decades, states have increasingly cited non-traditional threats, such as terrorism and transnational crime, to justify military interventions, often blurring the lines of legality established by the UN Charter (Gray, 2018). The precedent set by the US in this case could encourage other states to undertake similar unilateral actions under the guise of combating crime, potentially destabilising the international legal order. Moreover, the lack of recourse to multilateral mechanisms, such as the Security Council or regional bodies like the Organization of American States, undermines collective approaches to shared challenges like drug trafficking. This raises important questions about the adaptability of international law to modern threats and whether existing frameworks are sufficient to regulate state behaviour in such contexts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the US actions in August 2025 and the subsequent kinetic strikes in the Caribbean Sea present significant challenges to the rules on the use of force in international law. The initial military deployment, while not a direct use of force, appears to contravene the spirit of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter by threatening Venezuela’s sovereignty without a clear legal basis or imminent threat. The later strikes and associated policies, including the targeting of non-state actors and a head of state, more explicitly violate principles of necessity, proportionality, and collective security. These actions underscore a broader trend of expanding national security justifications, which risks eroding the foundational norms of international law. Ultimately, while the US may argue a moral imperative to combat drug trafficking, the legal framework prioritises restraint and cooperation, suggesting that both sets of actions are, at best, contentious and, at worst, unlawful. The implications for global stability and the integrity of international law are profound, necessitating renewed dialogue on how to address transnational threats within existing legal constraints.
References
- Brownlie, I. (2008) Principles of Public International Law. 7th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Cassese, A. (2005) International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
- Gray, C. (2018) International Law and the Use of Force. 4th ed. Oxford University Press.
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (1988) United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. United Nations.
