Recently, it emerged that President Trump justifies attacks on Venezuelan vessels in the Caribbean Sea—allegedly carrying narcotics and drug smugglers—by invoking the existence of a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between the US and certain drug cartels. This is a flagrant attempt to bend and break international law. Not only is the existence of a NIAC legally untenable, but it also reveals a deeply disturbing ethical imbalance: the normalization of killing as political strategy and problem-solving tool.
It is unsurprising that the Trump administration seeks to invoke the existence of an NIAC in relation to the targeted groups. Domestically, it may provide a basis to argue that the targeted killing of individuals does not violate national criminal law. Internationally, it opens the door for framing such killings as lawful. The existence of NIAC allows, under the applicable law of armed conflict, the lawful targeting of members of organized armed groups that constitute the opposing party in the conflict, as well as civilians, for such time as they directly participate in hostilities.
There is no NIAC
The threshold for the occurrence of a NIAC is high. According to customary international law, as expressed in Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, such a conflict requires two conditions to be met: an armed conflict must be taking place between a state party and one or more organized armed groups, and the conflict must reach a minimum level of intensity.
Neither of these conditions is met.
For instance, one of the groups targeted by Trump, Tren de Agua, engages in criminal activities such as sex trafficking, human trafficking, and migrant smuggling, in addition to violence (e.g., murder, kidnapping, etc.). Drug smuggling is not a major activity of this group. Furthermore, this group lacks the structural requirements of an organized armed group, as noted in a recent US intelligence memo. It lacks clear command structures and continuous military organization, which is necessary to be considered an organized armed group. Moreover, Tren de Agua is only perceived as being able to undertake low-skill criminal activities. The fact that it is a criminal group is insufficient to justify the existence of a NIAC. Just classifying this group as a terrorist organization does not change this.
Trump cannot change the facts, no matter how hard he tries.
Furthermore, the minimum threshold requirement intended to distinguish NIAC from situations involving internal unrest or riots, which can be dealt with by the state’s regular law enforcement, has not been met. Even if the alleged drug smuggling would be true, this would not constitute an act of armed conflict – and there is still no evidence that the destroyed vessels carried narcotics or that the persons were involved in drug smuggling. Additionally, Trumps claim about saving 100,000 lives by attacking the alleged Venezuelan vessels is far from reality.
Even if the existence of an NAIC were to be assumed, targeted killings would only be permissible if less severe means were unavailable to prevent an alleged attack. In the Targeted Killings Case, the Supreme Court of Israel made a precise distinction: even in an armed conflict, targeted killing of (unprivileged) civilians is only proportional if arrest is not possible.
In the case of the Venezuelan vessels, the published videos do not show a dangerous situation that made it necessary to attack the vessels immediately. There is no evidence whatsoever that the people on board were identified as members of drug cartels, or that narcotics were present on the vessels.
The disturbing silence on this obvious breach of international law
The behavior of the Trump-led US is unsurprising. Given the government’s demonstrated disregard for the rule of law, its declaration of using American cities as training grounds for the military, its prosecution of political rivals, and its deportation of individuals without due process—to name just a few examples—, it is difficult to anticipate a different course of action regarding international law.
However, what is more concerning is not so much the Trump administration’s deeply flawed and arguably illegitimate action, but rather the almost complete absence of international criticism, as already noted. Neither the UN nor other democratic governments have explicitly condemned the US actions since, even though they reveal a distorted and dangerous understanding of international law.
In this case, international law is the victim, and it must be asked: What remains of international law if it is only applied against states without geopolitical weight or different political views?
Moral decay and the erosion of the rule of law
Even more concerning, however, is the public’s reaction to the incident. A video recently posted by Trump, showing the destruction of another vessel, attracted countless comments cheering the killing of the alleged smugglers. Furthermore, Trump is very clear about his intentions regarding the killing of probably innocent people: He wants to show off, using human lives as a tool for symbolic political gesture.
The enthusiasm expressed for illegal, extrajudicial killings reflects a profound moral decay. This is particularly striking given that, just weeks ago, even a comment about how the “MAGA gang” reacted to the murder of Charlie Kirk was met with political reprisal against individuals who held a differing political view. It seems that according to the US government and a segment of the US population, human rights and respect for human life apply selectively, depending on factors such as nationality, skin color, political affiliation, or perceived economic or political usefulness.
Outlook
The US attacks on Venezuelan vessels in the Caribbean Sea are an orchestrated attack on the life of those affected and on international law itself. These actions reflect a political culture in which the rule of law is employed solely to legitimize one’s own political interests, rather than restrict governmental actions.
Consequently, the threshold for the erosion of minimum humanitarian standards using military force has been crossed and continues to undermine the international legal framework. If international organizations and other democratic states do not clearly identify and condemn this behavior, they are actively contributing to the delegitimization of international law.
Citation proposal: Studt, Tjorben, The normalization of killing as political strategy and problem solving, JuWissBlog No. 97/2025, 22.10.2025, https://www.juwiss.de/97-2025/
This article is licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0.
