The US claims the killing of alleged Caribbean drug traffickers is lawful under “armed conflict” with the drug cartels. They’ve branded the victims “narco-terrorists” to justify the “armed conflict” claim. But that’s just a clever way to side-step due process. Why doesn’t the ICC take action?
By Robin Davis, December 3, 2025
There have been 83 extrajudicial killings of suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific so far in 21 US attacks on alleged drug smuggling boats.
The US claims the killings are lawful but legal experts aren’t buying it.
UN High Commissioner Volker Türk has called for an investigation and condemned the attacks as “extrajudicial killings” outside armed conflict. And former International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has said the strikes are “crimes against humanity”, and urged the Office of the Prosecutor to act.
So, why doesn’t the ICC take action?
It could, if the missiles were fired from the ships or aircraft of an ICC member state. But the US has refused to join the ICC. The only way the ICC Prosecutor could act directly would be to claim the US attacks effect the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of an ICC member state. But success would be unlikely because the US attacks the vessels in international waters.
Then why don’t other ICC member states act?
Antigua, Bahamas, Jamaica, Colombia, Trinidad & Tobago could refer the killings to the ICC using the same territorial effect claim. But that, too, would almost surely fail for the same reason as if the ICC were to act directly.
Couldn’t the UNSC stop it?
With enough support the UN Security Council (UNSC) could take action. In fact, after Venezuela declared a state of emergency the UNSC held an Emergency session on October 10, 2025. Venezuela’s draft resolution called for an immediate halt to the attacks and an independent investigation. It needed 9 votes in favour to pass. But it failed.
Venezuela, Russia, China, Bolivia, South Africa, Algeria, Guyana and Sierra Leone (8) voted in favour. The United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Denmark, Greece and Japan (7) voted against. Even had it passed, the US would veto any Security Council referral to the ICC.
What about the flag states of the boats attacked?
Couldn’t they refer a case to the ICC?
On September 23, 2025, in his UN General Assembly address, Colombian President Gustavo Petro demanded “criminal proceedings” against Donald Trump and senior US officials. Petro described the killing of the alleged Caribbean drug traffickers as “state terrorism” and the “murder of unarmed, poor young people”.
As an ICC member state, Colombia could trigger a referral, but has not done so. Instead, Petro suspended intelligence-sharing with the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), met victims’ families, and threatened to expel US military personnel. The US retaliated by imposing sanctions and revoking visas for Petro’s cabinet.
So, avenues for action under ICC jurisdiction do exist but apparently the political will does not.
However, there are alternatives to the ICC.
Any country could initiate Universal jurisdiction prosecutions in their own courts. The reason none have done so is likely due to fear of repercussions from the US.
US military personnel could refuse to obey illegal orders to commit extrajudicial killings. But such courage is rare and would have little effect unless done en-masse.
US federal courts or courts-martial could prosecute under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). However, history shows us that could take years and those giving the orders usually evade justice.
The UN Special Rapporteur or the Human Rights Commission could launch an investigation but neither have the power to prosecute.
So, the prospects for justice are bleak.
And we must wonder: if this really is about combating Caribbean drug traffickers, why not capture and question the suspects and use that information to bring down the cartels?
Dead men tell no tales. That’s why.
Trials would reveal that some and perhaps most of the victims have nothing to do with drug smuggling. Trump and his officials would be exposed for using the “war on drugs” as an excuse to position an enormous US naval flotilla within striking distance of Venezuela, which just happens to have the world’s greatest proven reserves of oil.
The cover story is “narco-terrorism”. The real story is regime change.
We are left with two questions.
Do we really want a world in which one nation can dictate how another should be governed in order to exploit its resources? And do we really want a world where anyone can be blown to bits on suspicion, without evidence, charge or a fair trial?
Also see: Will Russian Weapons Save Venezuela?