Reports of a second US missile strike targeting wounded survivors of a Venezuelan vessel have sparked bipartisan concern in Washington and condemnation abroad. Keeping in mind that the initial strike was controversial in itself, if verified, the follow-up strike could violate international humanitarian law, human rights law, maritime law, and US domestic law and may constitute a war crime.

The strikes: Initial and alleged follow-up

On September 2, 2025, the US military carried out a “kinetic strike” against a Venezuelan speedboat allegedly transporting members of the Tren de Aragua cartel and narcotics. The initial strike reportedly killed eleven people.

Investigations by The Washington Post and video analysts suggest that two men survived the first strike, clinging to wreckage while wounded. According to unnamed sources, a US Special Operations commander then ordered a second missile strike, allegedly following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s directive to leave “no survivors".

Hegseth publicly denied issuing the order and defended the operation as “lawful under both US and international law.”

Congressional reactions were swift and bipartisan. Representative Mike Turner stated, “If this occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act," while Senator Tim Kaine warned, “This rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true.”

International Humanitarian Law: Protections for the wounded

The Geneva Conventions and customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) explicitly prohibit targeting individuals who are "hors de combat," including the wounded, shipwrecked, or otherwise incapable of combat. Such individuals must be treated humanely, rescued, and provided medical care. Attacking them constitutes a grave breach, recognized as a war crime under international law and the US War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. §2441).

The expression "hors de combat" refers to a person who is no longer participating in hostilities, by choice or circumstance.

Legal experts emphasize that even alleged "terrorists" or enemy combatants retain protection once designated as "hors de combat." Deliberately targeting incapacitated survivors, as reported in this case, would clearly violate the Geneva Conventions’ core principles and could make US military personnel liable for prosecution.

Law of armed conflict vs. law enforcement

The Trump administration has attempted to justify the strike as part of a non-international armed conflict against transnational "drug cartels".

Even though the US drug narrative against Venezuela has been debunked countless times, or at least put into question, even under the supposed narrative, legal scholars widely reject the administration's framing. Professor Marc Weller of Chatham House notes that trafficking narcotics does not constitute an armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The cartels lack territorial control, structured military hierarchy, or sustained hostilities against a government, essential conditions for invoking the law of armed conflict.

Without these conditions, the use of military force falls under law enforcement standards rather than IHL. This distinction is critical because it triggers stricter human rights obligations, in the sense that lethal force is only lawful when necessary to prevent imminent harm.

Human rights law: Extrajudicial killing prohibited

International human rights law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), guarantees the right to life. Human Rights Watch (HRW) and UN experts stress that lethal force may only be used to prevent imminent threats, and it goes without saying that two wounded men clinging to wreckage pose no such threat.

This is not limited only to this case.

According to the BBC, and in response to a fifth strike by the US in October, Dame Law School Prof Mary Ellen O'Connell told BBC Verify that "no credible facts or legal principles have come to light to justify these attacks."

"The only relevant law for peace is international law - that is the law of treaties, human rights and statehood," the professor wrote in an emailed statement.

Meanwhile, UN experts have classified the alleged second strike as an extrajudicial execution. Internal US military legal advisors reportedly raised red flags prior to the operation, but their objections were overruled. US President Donald Trump said his administration “will look into” the reported incident but insisted he did not believe Hegseth had issued an unlawful command.

“Pete said he did not order the death of those two men,” Trump said. “And I believe him.” He further claimed that he “wouldn’t have wanted” a second strike on survivors.

In a September 18 report, HRW said that US military strikes on boats suspected of "drug smuggling" off Venezuela “amount to extrajudicial killings.” It warned that because the narcotics problem “is not an armed conflict,” US officials “cannot circumvent their human rights obligations by pretending otherwise.”

Needless to say that the US has so far offered no evidence whatsoever that backs its claims of narcotics trade in the attacked routes. 

Maritime law: UNCLOS and the High Seas

The strike in question occurred in international waters. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which the US observes as customary international law, foreign vessels on the high seas are protected from attack, except under narrow exceptions such as piracy or with flag-state consent.

Even stateless vessels are subject only to boarding, search, or seizure, not destruction. The 1988 Vienna Convention on Narcotics similarly limits interdiction operations to law-enforcement measures. Legal experts argue that a missile strike on a vessel without lawful interdiction constitutes a breach of international law and an attack on sovereignty, particularly given Venezuela’s official condemnation.

'Narco-terrorist' label does not override legal obligations

The Trump administration justified the operation by labeling the target as affiliated with a “Designated Terrorist Organization.” International law does not grant states the authority to assassinate individuals based solely on unilateral designations.

Even combatants or "terrorists" retain protection once "hors de combat," as specified above.

US domestic law, rules of engagement

US law, including the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, treats high-seas drug interdictions as law-enforcement operations, emphasizing seizure and arrest over lethal force. The Department of War's rules of engagement restrict the use of deadly force to "immediate threats".

Military personnel are bound by Executive Order 12333, which prohibits assassination, reinforcing the legal conflict of such a directive. An order to kill wounded or shipwrecked persons contradicts both US domestic law and long-established international norms.

Trump's administration seems to be trying to get away with its attacks in the Caribbean by playing on a legal technicality. For example, the administration has reportedly informed Congress that President Trump has classified the situation as a “formal armed conflict” rather than “hostilities", a distinction that follows the precedent set during the presidency of Barack Obama.

Obama justified NATO’s 2011 air campaign over Libya using the same reasoning at a time when Congress was divided over the matter, and although there was initial disagreement, he later accepted the legal rationale put forward by his administration, establishing a precedent for defining military actions in ways that limit congressional constraints while maintaining executive authority.

Global and domestic reactions

Congressional committees are investigating the legality of the strikes and the chain of command involved. Internationally, Colombia suspended intelligence-sharing agreements, while Venezuela condemned the attacks as “premeditated executions".

Human rights organizations warn that these actions undermine global norms and regional stability.

Conclusion: Clear violation of multiple legal frameworks

If verified, the second missile strike violates multiple legal standards:

• International Humanitarian Law: Attacking "hors de combat" individuals constitutes a war crime.
• Human rights law: Lethal force against incapacitated, non-threatening persons violates the right to life.
• Maritime law: Targeting vessels in international waters without lawful interdiction breaches UNCLOS and customary law.
• US domestic law: Contravenes the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act and DoD rules of engagement.

Labeling targets as “terrorists” provides no legal shield. The alleged “no survivors” policy directly contradicts international norms, US law, and the basic principle of preserving human life.

The incident sets a dangerous precedent: using military force against defenseless individuals in international waters is unlawful, inhumane, and threatens both regional stability and global legal order.