UN condemns U.S. maritime strikes as human rights watchdog warns allies on complicity

The United Nations human rights chief has formally declared that U.S. lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels "violate international human rights law" and must stop, marking the first direct condemnation from the UN system of a maritime enforcement campaign that has killed at least 87 people in three months. On October 31, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said the strikes in the Caribbean and nearby Pacific are "unacceptable," emphasized that lethal force is lawful only as a last resort when there is an imminent threat to life, and called for "prompt, independent, transparent investigations." Türk noted there is no public evidence that those targeted posed an imminent threat.

Now Human Rights Watch is raising the stakes for Washington's partners. In a December 9 statement, HRW urged allied governments—including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands—to publicly object to what it characterizes as "unlawful extrajudicial executions" and to ensure they are not complicit through intelligence-sharing arrangements. The call puts diplomatic and legal pressure on Five Eyes members and participants in the long-running Campaign Martillo detection network, warning that passive acquiescence may carry international legal liability.

The legal frame that determines life or death

At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question of applicable law. The Trump administration has framed the strikes as part of a "non-international armed conflict" against "narco-terrorists," a paradigm that would invoke international humanitarian law and permit targeting of combatants. Under that framework, suspects become legitimate military objectives rather than civilians entitled to arrest and trial.

The UN and HRW reject this categorically. Counter-narcotics operations are law-enforcement activities governed by international human rights law, which permits intentional lethal force only when strictly unavoidable to protect life from an imminent threat. Without evidence that vessel crews posed such a threat—or that non-lethal interdiction was attempted—the killings meet the definition of extrajudicial executions. "The rules-based international order depends on countries speaking out against violations, even when they're committed by powerful friends," said Sarah Yager, HRW's Washington director.

The administration has provided no public evidence of imminence and has not explained why traditional boarding-and-arrest protocols—standard practice under Campaign Martillo since 2012—were abandoned in favor of airstrikes by attack helicopters and MQ-9 Reaper drones. President Trump stated the policy plainly in October: "I think we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country."

The evidence: 23 strikes, 87 dead, two survivors

HRW's December statement documents at least 23 lethal strikes since mid-September 2025, with only two known survivors. The most scrutinized incident occurred on September 2 in international waters, when an initial strike killed eleven people. The White House later confirmed a follow-up "second strike" occurred; media reports indicate two survivors of the initial blast were subsequently killed in that second engagement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has denied ordering a kill-all directive, while confirming that Admiral Bradley directed the follow-on strike with authorization to conduct strikes.

Lawmakers from both parties have demanded full video release and copies of execute orders. Legal experts note that intentionally striking shipwrecked survivors would constitute a war crime even if the administration's armed-conflict paradigm were accepted—a standard that prohibits attacking persons hors de combat. Outside the armed-conflict frame, such killings are simply extrajudicial executions under human rights law.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expressed "deep concern" on December 2, urging the U.S. to refrain from using lethal military force in public security operations and calling for independent investigations and compliance with international human rights law standards. The shift from interdiction to kinetic strikes—now branded Operation Southern Spear—represents a doctrinal departure from law enforcement toward what Hegseth describes as "lethal, kinetic strikes" to "eliminate narco-terrorists."

Exclusive Analysis Continues:

Members are reading: How intelligence-sharing by Five Eyes and Campaign Martillo partners could trigger legal complicity under international law.

Become a Member for Full Access

What accountability would require

The UN High Commissioner and HRW have outlined a clear accountability pathway: prompt, independent, transparent investigations into each killing; public disclosure of the legal basis and execute orders; individual criminal accountability where evidence warrants; and an immediate end to strikes pending legal review. For partner governments, the threshold is lower but politically harder: public objection, legal due diligence on intelligence flows, and safeguards to prevent enabling future strikes.

Neither is forthcoming. The legal opinions justifying the strikes remain classified. Congressional oversight is mounting—bipartisan committees are pursuing video and documents—but the administration has framed sustained scrutiny as interference with operational security. Meanwhile, the body count grows in waters where arrests, not airstrikes, were the norm until three months ago.

The divide between law enforcement and armed conflict is not an academic abstraction. It determines whether 87 people were lawfully targeted or unlawfully executed. It determines whether allies are cooperating in counternarcotics or aiding extrajudicial killings. And it determines whether the rules governing the use of lethal force retain meaning when powerful states claim the right to kill suspects at sea without trial, without transparency, and without accountability.