Written by J’da Tyler
*This blog post does not account for the recent escalation between the United States and Venezuela following Operation Absolute Resolve.
Introduction
Beginning in September 2025, the United States has carried out 20 airstrikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, killing 80 people.1Michael Rios, Avery Schmitz & Matt Stiles, A Timeline of U.S. Strikes on Boats That Have Killed 80, CNN (last updated Jan. 23, 2026), https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/02/politics/timeline-us-strikes-caribbean-pacific-vis (on file with American University International Law Review). The Trump administration has stated that these strikes are part of a campaign aimed at interrupting the flow of drugs into the U.S.2Id. The U.S. argues that the strikes are legal as acts of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter (Article 51).3Tom Hals, Explainer: Did the U.S. Military Commit a War Crime in Boat Attack off Venezuela?, Reuters (last updated Dec. 9, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/are-deadly-us-strikes-alleged-drug-vessels-legal-2025-10-31 (on file with American University International Law Review). Specifically, the Trump administration claims that the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and that the targeted boats are operated by foreign terror organizations.4The Associated Press, Trump Administration Announces 16th Deadly Strike on an Alleged Drug Boat, NPR (Nov. 5, 2025, 2:56 AM), https://www.npr.org/2025/11/05/nx-s1-5599008/trump-administration-16th-strike-drug-boat (on file with American University International Law Review). Some experts argue that it would be a dangerous mistake to categorize the strikes as self-defense in accordance with Article 51 because they amount to extrajudicial killings.5Hals, supra note 3. Categorizing U.S. airstrikes on alleged drug boats as self-defense in accordance with Article 51 would have a dangerous impact on the current international order by blurring the line between self-defense and extrajudicial killing.
Background
The U.N. Charter was signed on June 26, 1945, in San Francisco and came into force on October 24, 1945.6See Preparatory Years: UN Charter History, U.N., https://www.un.org/en/about-us/history-of-the-un/preparatory-years (on file with American University International Law Review) (last visited Jan. 28, 2026) (describing the timeline and development of the U.N. Charter). Article 51 recognizes member states’ right to self-defense against armed attacks and serves as one of the only two exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force codified in Article 2(4).7In Hindsight: The Increasing Use of Article 51 of the UN Charter and the Security Council, Sec. Council Rep. (Sept. 30, 2025) [hereinafter In Hindsight], https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php (on file with American University International Law Review). Excluding determinations by the Security Council for the Palestine question and the first report of the Atomic Energy Commission, a firm definition of the scope of self-defense under Article 51 has not been established, leaving room for interpretation.8U.N. Charter art. 51; see Repertory of Practice of the Charter of the United Nations Article 51, U.N. (last updated Aug. 23, 2016), https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51/english/rep_orig_vol2_art51.pdf (on file with American University International Law Review) (explaining the decision on the Palestine question which restricted application of Article 51 to cases of armed attack and limited use of the provision to any time prior to the Security Council taking action, and the decision on the first report of the Atomic Energy Commission which determined that preliminary actions for deploying an atomic bomb constitutes an armed attack). Some member states have taken a narrow approach and limit the self-defense exception to only after an armed attack has occurred.9In Hindsight, supra note 7. Other member states, including the U.S., have adopted an expansive interpretation that allows for use of the provision when an armed attack is imminent but hasn’t yet occurred.10Id. In both interpretations, the definition of an armed attack plays a central role in the interpretation of the scope of Article 51.
An armed attack has never been defined in any treaties or other laws, as the concept is meant to adapt to stand the width of time.11How Is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law?, Int’l Comm. Red Cross 1, 5 (Apr. 16, 2024), https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document_new/file_list/armed_conflict_defined_in_ihl.pdf (on file with American University International Law Review). Conversely, extrajudicial killing is defined as a state’s intentional killing of a person without due process.12Elizabeth Mohn, Extrajudicial Killing (State Killing), EBSCO (2025), https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/extrajudicial-killing-state-killing (on file with American University International Law Review). Current U.S. strikes can be categorized as a response to an armed attack under the expansive interpretation or as extrajudicial killing if Article 51 does not apply. Choosing the former would serve as precedent for the overlapping of self-defense and extrajudicial killing which would have chilling effects on the international order, including interrupting diplomatic relations amongst allies and challenging national sovereignty.13See Rachel Hagan & Imogen Foulkes, U.S. Strikes on Alleged Drug Boats Violate Law, UN Human Rights Chief Says, BBC News (Oct. 31, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2nx95pgz7o (on file with American University International Law Review) (U.N human rights chief expressing condemnation of U.S. actions, equating them to extrajudicial killings).
Analysis
Blurring the line between self-defense as defined by Article 51 and extrajudicial killing would interrupt current diplomatic relations by causing states to distance themselves and alter working agreements. The current relationship between the United Kingdom and U.S. is a prime example. Since World War II, the U.K. and the U.S. have shared a special defense and intelligence relationship.14See Jeffrey D. McCausland & Douglas Stuart, U.S.-UK Relations at the Start of the 21st Century, 9 (2006) (explaining the relationship between the U.S. and the UK, including military and intelligence relationship). However with recent events, the U.K. has suspended intelligence sharing with the U.S. in the Caribbean as they believe U.S. actions lack legality.15See Trump’s Targeting of Alleged Drug Vessels Strains UK-US Intelligence Ties, The Guardian (Nov. 14, 2025, 8:50 EST), https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/nov/14/trump-targeting-alleged-drug-vessels-uk-us-intelligence-ties-analysis (on file with American University International Law Review) (confirming UK authorities halt on sharing information that could aid in U.S. airstrikes due to concerns of legality). Although this is not the first rift in the U.S.-U.K. intelligence relationship, the shift in the U.S. approach to diplomatic conflict resolution under the second Trump administration, coupled with the legal implications of current events, poses a potentially long-lasting roadblock in the U.S.-U.K. intelligence relationship.16Id. If the U.S. is to continue with the airstrikes, other nations are bound to follow suit with the U.K., ultimately interrupting international order as it is known since intelligence sharing plays a significant role in the international order.
Categorizing U.S. actions as self-defense in accordance with Article 51 would challenge national sovereignty by allowing states to act as law enforcement outside their territory. The U.S. asserts that the targeted boats in recent airstrikes are drug couriers, however no further evidence has been provided confirming claims of drugs onboard.17Tom Bateman, U.S. Boat Strikes Are Crimes Against Humanity, Says Former ICC Prosecutor, BBC News (Nov. 6, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9kgqwnk8wo (on file with American University International Law Review) (U.S. authorities have refused to provide additional information to support their actions, and it has been confirmed that at least one of the boats attacked was a fisher boat). Members of the international legal field have contended that, even if assertions made by the U.S. are true, the alleged criminals should be given due process, not executed.18Id. In this case, the right to prosecute the alleged criminals belongs to Colombia and Venezuela because the boats are said to have originated from those states.19Charles Lipcon, Who Has Jurisdiction in International Waters?, Att. at L. Magazine (Feb. 11, 2022), https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/public-articles/maritime/who-has-jurisdiction-in-international-waters (on file with American University International Law Review) (explaining how jurisdiction is determined in international waters); (Columbia and Venezuela are the two identified states of where the cartels are based and the alleged courier boats are believed to have departed from). U.S. strikes on the boats resulting in the death of the alleged criminals prevents Colombia and Venezuela from administering due process.20See Bateman, supra note 17 (explains that if the U.S. claims are true, due process should be given). Instead, the U.S. acts as law enforcement, a direct infringement on the national sovereignty of Columbia and Venezuela.21Id. If the airstrikes are categorized as self-defense in accordance with Article 51, actions that are widely interpreted as extrajudicial killings may now be justified as self-defense.
Two paths may solve this issue with little damage to international order. First, if the U.S. provides additional information supporting their claims. This would provide its counterparts and the rest of the international community with a better understanding of its actions. Second, if the Security Council makes a statement that determines whether U.S. actions are acceptable or not. This would provide guidance for the future to prevent events of this sort.
Conclusion
As of now, there has been no response from the Security Council regarding U.S. actions. The Trump administration remains firm on the claim that the U.S. is engaged in armed conflict and that the strikes on the alleged drug boats are self-defense in accordance with Article 51. Tension remains high in the international community as the airstrikes continue with little to no additional evidence supporting U.S. claims. The legal outcome of these events will have lasting effects on international order by blurring the line between self-defense and extrajudicial killing if the strikes are found to be covered by Article 51 or by setting a stark boundary for future interpretation of armed attacks if the strikes are found to be not covered by Article 51.