The following statement was written by NCF Research Officer Olwyn Matthews, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly at the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council. It outlines how the recent action defying established legal norms governing conduct on the High Seas highlights a troubling shift toward the normalisation of force and legal ambiguity at the expense of long-standing maritime and humanitarian principles.

A copy of the statement submitted to the United Nations can be found at this link. The full text of the statement can be seen below:

Unchecked Force and Human Rights on the High Seas

The Next Century Foundation calls upon the United Nations Human Rights Council to address the United States of America’s seizure of vessels and to condemn the use of force in international waters, actions conducted under the pretext of sanctions enforcement and counter-drugs operations. These measures constitute an unlawful expansion of domestic authority, undermining established principles of international maritime and humanitarian law and threatening to set a dangerous precedent that could destabilise the norms governing state conduct on the High Seas.

The United States of America Lawful Or Prohibited Intervention

The United States of America’s seizure of vessels transporting oil from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela represents a troubling grey area of international maritime law and reflects the application of the United States of America’s domestic interests and sanctions in international waters.

In support of the Trump administration’s continued efforts to exert control over Venezuelan oil, the United States of America’s Secretary of Homeland Security has asserted that the United States of America is pursuing vessels belonging to a so-called “ghost fleet”. These vessels under the scrutiny of the United States of America are accused of transporting oil from the Russian Federation, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in an effort to evade sanctions by the United States of America. Such vessels are said to obscure their movements by disabling transponders to avoid satellite detection, falsifying identities, flying incorrect flags or repeatedly changing vessel names.

While the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UCNLOS) permits any state to exercise a right of visit on vessels suspected of being stateless, the legality of subsequent seizure or forfeiture remains unclear and are often left to customary international law. Actions extending past the right of visit risk constituting an overreach of authority on the High Seas and exceed the intended scope of international maritime law.

Following the escalation of sanctions against Venezuelan oil shipping companies, the United States of America established a naval blockade preventing oil tankers from departing the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Since the initiation of the United States of America’s pressure campaign against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in September 2025, and following his capture on 1 January 2026, the United States of America has seized at least seven oil tankers linked to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in international waters. These seizures form part of a broader campaign, Operation Southern Spear, with the publicised goal of suppressing “narco-terrorist” organisations and illegal drug trafficking.

Although framed as regulatory enforcement, these actions increasingly blur the line between lawful enforcement measures and prohibited intervention. While the United States of America has not ratified the UNCLOS, it has consistently acknowledged the Convention and observes many of its provisions as reflective of customary international law

The United States of America’s Seizure Of “Ghost Fleets”

On 10 December 2025, the United States of America’s Coast Guard, Homeland Security Investigations and the Federal Bureau of Investigations conducted a helicopter insertion from a Navy vessel of the United States of America onto the oil tanker, Skipper, which carried approximately 1.85 million barrels of Venezuelan heavy crude. The cargo was seized and placed under the United States of America’s custody pending forfeiture proceedings. The Skipper vessel had fraudulently claimed Guyanese ownership with the use of a false flag. Accordingly, the initial boarding of the vessel was consistent with international maritime law, specifically Article 110 of UNCLOS, which permits a right of visit when there is reasonable suspicion of statelessness. UNCLOS, however, provides no clear guidance regarding the legality of subsequent seizure once statelessness has been established, leaving the law in this question ambiguous.

This legal ambiguity places reliance on customary international law, which similarly offers limited clarity regarding state action following the discovery of a stateless vessel. It is within this grey area that the United States of America appears to expand its authority, applying national interests via sanctions in international waters.

In the case of the Skipper, the United States of America Secretary of Homeland Security justified the seizure on the grounds of enforcing the United States of America’s sanctions against Venezuelan oil and advancing the “war on drugs”. This justification raises a crucial question as to whether the enforcement of domestic mandates can lawfully authorise the seizure of a vessel on the High Seas. The United States of America has historically asserted jurisdiction over stateless vessels particularly in cases applying the state’s Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act and Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act. The proper procedure following right to visit, then transformed into the enforcement of domestic sanctions and interests and left unchecked creates a precarious precedent to activities by other States on the High Seas.

A similar pattern is evident in the seizure of the vessel Marinera on 7 January 2026. In this instance, the United States of America interdicted another ‘ghost vessel’ in international waters for previously transporting oil from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation in violation of the sanctions of the United States of America. After initially evading seizure in the Caribbean Sea, the vessel formerly named Bella 1 altered its name and course toward the Russian Federation. Unlike Skipper, Marinera was registered and flagged as a Russian vessel at the time of seizure. The interdiction therefore poses a challenge to the Russian Federation’s claim of exclusive jurisdiction over its flagged vessels. The tanker was boarded in waters between Iceland and Scotland and was subsequently relocated to the territorial waters of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the support of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland government.

Although these cases are individually classified as routine enforcement actions, when considered collectively they reveal a pattern where ambiguously interpreted maritime law exceptions are being leveraged to justify the advancement of domestic objectives of the United States of America, particularly the effort to assert control over the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela’s oil supply. This undermines the balance between lawful regulation and unlawful intervention on the High Seas.

Strikes By The United States of America Defying Humanitarian Law

While the United States of America’s seizure and the forfeiture of ghost vessels in the name of evading sanctions remains unclear in the realm of international maritime law, the continuous campaign of strikes by the United States of America against vessels allegedly operated by “narco-terrorists” is in direct violation of international law.

Under the banner of Operation Southern Spear, the United States of America has conducted a series of attacks against vessels allegedly connected to drug-trafficking, declaring the objectives of halting the flow of drugs into the United States of America and intensifying pressure on the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Since September 2025, these attacks have killed at least 81 people in more than 35 strikes in the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. This campaign has continued since the United States of America’s capture of Nicolás Maduro on 1 January 2026. These strikes violate long-established laws of warfare, notwithstanding the United States of America’s assertions that the strikes are necessary to eliminate the threat posed by drugs.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of an individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations”.

This provision establishes a narrow conception of self-defence, which the United States of America invokes to justify the use of force in these strikes. Although customary international law recognises a limited right of anticipatory self-defence, such action is lawful only where the threat satisfies the requirement of necessity. Strictly, the threat is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation”.

While drug trafficking undeniably constitutes a serious threat to public health in the United States of America, the mere presence of suspected drug trafficking vessels does not amount to an imminent armed attack warranting their immediate destruction or the killing of their crew members. Furthermore, it has not been confirmed the vessels were bound for the United States of America and therefore cannot be credibly characterised as posing an immediate and existential threat to trigger the right of self-defence.

In the case of the 2 September 2025 strikes, an alleged drug-trafficking vessel was struck twice despite being unarmed and despite the presence of shipwrecked survivors from the first strike.

Article 12(1) of the Geneva Convention II stipulates that:

“Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances”.

The second strike resulted in the deaths of the remaining two shipwrecked individuals, constituting a clear violation of international law. Although the suppression of narcotics trafficking is a legitimate domestic objective, it does not confer the unilateral jurisdiction or justify unchecked uses of force on the High Seas.

If left unchallenged, such actions conducted under Operation Southern Spear risk normalising the use of force in international maritime space as an instrument of domestic and foreign policy.

Conclusion

Without opposition, the United States of America’s’ expansive interpretation and violation of international maritime and humanitarian law sets a dangerous precedent. By disregarding established legal norms governing the High Seas, the United States of America significantly undermines the ability of the international community to lawfully contest similar actions by other states that seize vessels or commit acts of violence on the basis of their own domestic laws.

We recommend the United Nations Human Rights Council formally condemns the violations of the Geneva Convention II, reinforcing the binding nature of international humanitarian law, and promotes the monitoring of ambiguous international maritime law, particularly regarding the seizure of vessels and use of force at sea, to prevent unilateral interpretations from setting a threatening model for behaviour on the High Seas.