我剛搜索的，供參考。

legal base for us military striking venezuela boat

AI Overview

 

 

 

Following reports of U.S. military strikes on vessels suspected of drug trafficking off the coast of Venezuela in late 2025, the U.S. administration defended its actions by citing the international legal principle of self-defense

. However, this justification has been widely disputed by international legal experts, lawmakers, and human rights organizations. 

 

 

U.S. government position

 

The White House has argued that the military actions are legally permissible under both U.S. and international law. Key elements of its justification include: 

 

• Self-defense against "narco-terrorism": Officials asserted that they have the authority to act in self-defense against drug cartels, framing the campaign as a way to stop illegal narcotics from entering the United States. In a November 2025 notice to Congress, the Trump administration reportedly stated that the U.S. is engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" with drug cartels.
• Compliance with international law of armed conflict: The administration maintained that the strikes were in compliance with the law of armed conflict.
• Approval by military lawyers: The administration also stated that military lawyers throughout the chain of command approved the operations. 

•  

 

International law counterarguments

 

Many legal experts and critics argue that the U.S. strikes are unlawful under international law. 

 

• Misapplication of self-defense: Critics state that the use of military force is not justified as self-defense unless there is an imminent and unavoidable armed attack by the state of Venezuela. Under international law, drug smuggling is a law enforcement issue, not an act of armed attack by a state that would justify military strikes.
• Necessity and proportionality: International law requires that the use of force be both necessary and proportional. Legal experts argue the strikes fail both tests because diplomatic or law enforcement options were available and the lethal airstrikes were disproportionate to the threat posed by drug smuggling.
• Violation of the UN Charter: The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state's territorial integrity, with exceptions for self-defense or UN Security Council authorization. Critics argue that because the strikes were neither authorized by the UN nor a legitimate act of self-defense, they violate the UN Charter.
• Illegal killing of survivors: A specific aspect of the recent controversy involves a second missile strike on a sinking boat, reportedly ordered to kill survivors in the water. International humanitarian law prohibits attacking incapacitated combatants or "shipwrecked persons" who are no longer a threat. 

•  

 

Domestic and international response

 

• Internal disagreement: Reports indicate that some U.S. military lawyers questioned the legality of the strikes and were pressured to affirm their legality by political appointees.
• International concern: Other countries, including France, have expressed concern that the U.S. military operations violate international law.
• Congressional scrutiny: The strikes led to bipartisan concern in the U.S. Congress, with lawmakers questioning the legal basis for the operations and calling for an investigation.
• Justice Department opinion: In response to legal concerns, the Department of Justice provided a classified legal opinion to protect military personnel involved in the strikes from prosecution, arguing the strikes were consistent with the laws of armed conflict.