A United Nations legal expert has concluded that recent U.S. airstrikes targeting alleged drug smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific may violate international law and potentially constitute crimes against humanity. The findings were detailed in a report released Monday by Ben Saul, the U.N. special rapporteur overseeing human rights in counterterrorism contexts.

Saul’s analysis focuses on 68 military strikes carried out by U.S. forces between September 2025 and April 2026, which reportedly killed at least 223 people. The operations form part of a wider initiative named “Southern Spear,” launched by the United States with the stated objective of intercepting drug shipments linked to organized crime networks. While the U.S. government has claimed the targeted boats were transporting narcotics, no public evidence of such cargo has been presented. Legal experts have raised questions about the lawfulness of the attacks, regardless of the vessels’ alleged involvement in drug trafficking.

“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the reported 68 attacks that killed 223 people constituted crimes against humanity of murder under customary international law,” Saul wrote in his paper. The U.S. Department of Defense had no immediate comment on the report. This month, U.S. military sources announced two further strikes, increasing the total to 70 vessels and 234 deaths, though these latest actions were not included in Saul’s assessment.

Saul also scrutinized aspects of the broader U.S. antinarcotics campaign, including the controversial seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January 2026, an operation that resulted in at least 75 fatalities. The legal expert described this action as a prohibited use of force under international law. The United States charged Maduro with involvement in large-scale drug trafficking.

Further highlighting concerns, Saul criticized the “highly securitized” approach of U.S. efforts to enhance multilateral and bilateral cooperation through initiatives such as “Shield of the Americas.” He noted the strategy lacked explicit commitments to uphold human rights or international law, and failed to address underlying factors fueling organized crime, including poverty, corruption, and weak governance.

The report also questioned the effectiveness of the military campaign. Citing an internal Drug Enforcement Administration assessment, Saul pointed out that these operations had not measurably reduced the supply, price, or purity of cocaine in the United States. He underscored that a significant portion of cocaine arrives via container shipping vessels, which are generally not subject to the same level of inspection as the smaller boats targeted in the airstrikes.

The wider U.N. human rights system has recently expressed objections to U.S. counterdrug operations. Last week, a U.N. fact-finding mission reported that U.S. airstrikes in Iran may constitute war crimes and noted dismissive statements from U.S. officials regarding international legal obligations. Volker Turk, the U.N. human rights chief, condemned the attacks on drug trafficking vessels as violations of international law, calling for investigations and possible prosecutions. Saul’s report expanded this critique by raising questions of possible criminal responsibility for officials who authorized or conducted unlawful actions.

The U.S. government has defended its counterdrug offensive as necessary for combating narco-terrorism, asserting the legitimacy of its operations, though it has yet to publicly provide detailed evidence backing its claims about the targeted boats. The legal and human rights questions raised by the U.N. expert and other bodies contribute to ongoing debate over the proper scope and methods of the United States’ regional security strategy.