Skip to main content

3.1 – The state and globalisation

3.3 – Global governance: human rights and environmental

3.4 – Power and developments

3.6 – Comparative theories

 

The USA’s maritime strike campaign in late 2025 dramatically escalated after a series of attacks on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. One November strike killed six people on a vessel Washington described as an “armed drug-smuggling craft”, while another strike in the Pacific on 4 December killed four. The Pentagon maintains the attacks occurred in international waters and form part of a counter-narcotics mission.

 

Venezuela has forcefully challenged this narrative. Under the direction of President Maduro, the Venezuelan National Assembly opened an investigation after local reports from the coastal state of Sucre described heightened surveillance, vessel checks and fear among fishermen who said they had seen drones operating near traditional fishing routes. Opposition figures and some governments, such as Russia and Colombia, argued that the USA was conducting extraterritorial uses of force that stretched, and possibly breached, international law.

A particular criticism is the use of “double-tap” strikes to execute survivors of initial strikes. Congressional investigations revealed that a September strike was followed by a second strike shortly afterwards to kill two survivors clinging to the wreckage. Regardless of the legality of the initial strike, this could be classified as a war crime (executing combatants who pose no threat and are surrendering).

The episode reflects a strongly realist US posture: Washington has framed the campaign as necessary for national security, even where legal clarity is weak. But the backlash highlights liberal concerns about rule-based order and proportionality. The strikes also illustrate the vulnerabilities created by globalisation. Transnational drug networks acting as powerful non-state actors may give states justification to act beyond their borders, creating grey zones in which conflicting interpretations of international law collide with each other.

Leave a Reply

Feedback
First
Last