- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,332
- 0
- 6
UN human rights experts raised concerns on Tuesday over “repeated and systematic lethal attacks” directed by the US against vessels in the “Caribbean and Eastern Pacific,” which could constitute war crimes under international maritime law.
Three UN experts stated that the attacks “appear to be unlawful killings,” which lack “judicial or legal process allowing due process of law.” Allegedly, no efforts were made to “apprehend the individuals or provide concrete evidence about why they were lawful targets.” As a result, it seems that the strikes were not motivated by “national self-defence” and did not target “individuals posing an imminent threat to life.” The experts raised these concerns directly with the US government, calling for an immediate stop to the strikes and an investigation.
The 15 strikes in question took place in international waters from September 2 onward, targeting vessels suspected of trafficking narcotics. There have reportedly been 64 fatalities and three survivors. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated in a letter written after the first strike that it was a response to “[e]xtraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels … designated as terrorist organizations,” which threaten US citizens as well as “national security and foreign policy interests.” He justified the strikes as self-defense, stating that countries in the region are unable or unwilling “to address the continuing threat.” Secretary Hegseth further said in an X post from October 28 that “[t]hese narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not explicitly prohibit strikes in international waters, but establishes “freedom of the high seas” and their use “for peaceful purposes” (articles 87-88.) UNCLOS has not been ratified by the US, but it has been its policy to “act in a manner consistent with its provisions.” Article 51 of the UN Charter, to which the US is a party, justifies self-defense in the event of an “armed attack,” as long as the response is necessary and proportionate in accordance with customary law. President Trump has described the strikes as part of an “armed conflict” with cartels, which would make cartel members enemy combatants rather than criminals, though this classification has been questioned by legal experts. There is moreover doubt as to whether the President can legally authorize the strikes without congressional approval.
The post UN rights experts call US strikes on vessels potential war crimes appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
Three UN experts stated that the attacks “appear to be unlawful killings,” which lack “judicial or legal process allowing due process of law.” Allegedly, no efforts were made to “apprehend the individuals or provide concrete evidence about why they were lawful targets.” As a result, it seems that the strikes were not motivated by “national self-defence” and did not target “individuals posing an imminent threat to life.” The experts raised these concerns directly with the US government, calling for an immediate stop to the strikes and an investigation.
The 15 strikes in question took place in international waters from September 2 onward, targeting vessels suspected of trafficking narcotics. There have reportedly been 64 fatalities and three survivors. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated in a letter written after the first strike that it was a response to “[e]xtraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels … designated as terrorist organizations,” which threaten US citizens as well as “national security and foreign policy interests.” He justified the strikes as self-defense, stating that countries in the region are unable or unwilling “to address the continuing threat.” Secretary Hegseth further said in an X post from October 28 that “[t]hese narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) does not explicitly prohibit strikes in international waters, but establishes “freedom of the high seas” and their use “for peaceful purposes” (articles 87-88.) UNCLOS has not been ratified by the US, but it has been its policy to “act in a manner consistent with its provisions.” Article 51 of the UN Charter, to which the US is a party, justifies self-defense in the event of an “armed attack,” as long as the response is necessary and proportionate in accordance with customary law. President Trump has described the strikes as part of an “armed conflict” with cartels, which would make cartel members enemy combatants rather than criminals, though this classification has been questioned by legal experts. There is moreover doubt as to whether the President can legally authorize the strikes without congressional approval.
The post UN rights experts call US strikes on vessels potential war crimes appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.