Belgium’s Battle on the Docks
From Antwerp’s docks to Brussels’ streets, Belgium’s escalating drug war exposes deep cracks in its justice system, governance, and social fabric. But as cartels target prosecutors, threaten ministers, and spread fear through cities, a troubling question emerges: is this still organized crime – or the rise of a new form of narco-terrorism? The lines between […]Sinking a Boat Is Not Law Enforcement
Proportionality at stake
The U.S. Navy recently destroyed a fast boat leaving Venezuela, killing 11 people allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang. Officials described it as a counter-narcotics operation aimed at protecting public health. (US Navy Institute).
While drug trafficking is a serious threat, the use of missiles against an unarmed vessel raises fundamental legal and ethical questions and puts the legal principle of proportionality at stake.
International Law Requires Consent and Cooperation
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1988 UN Drug Trafficking Convention, states must act in cooperation, often requiring flag-state consent before boarding or seizing vessels. The brilliant Prof. Natalie Klein notes that international rules “retain the need for flag-state authorisation.” (Natalie’s book).
These treaties envision inspection, boarding, and arrest – not instant destruction. The law prioritises due process and the protection of life, even for suspected criminals. Hence, this assault puts proportionality at stake.
The “Immediate Threat” Argument
The U.S. administration claims the strike was justified because the boat posed an “immediate threat” to public health. But international law interprets immediate danger as a direct, imminent risk to life or property – at sea. A general risk from potential drug trafficking does not meet this threshold. (EJIL article).
Missiles in this context are disproportionate. Law enforcement should be measured: cooperate, inspect, and arrest. Sinking a vessel without imminent threat exceeds what proportionality allows.
So What?
This is not a legal technicality that puts proportionality at stake. How states respond to crime at sea sets precedents for human life, international order, and accountability. Disproportionate force risks normalising extrajudicial killings.
Policy makers, legal scholars, and military legal advisors cannot remain silent. They must debate and clarify acceptable rules of engagement. Any deaths at sea demand a prompt, independent, and transparent investigation. Proportionality and consent are not optional—they are essential to justice and international trust.
Bottom line: Cooperation and proportionality – not “sink it first, ask questions later” – should guide law enforcement at sea.
Transparency note: Prof Natalie Klein and Philippe Hermes work together in the ILA Committee on Protection of People at Sea.
