When the law bends: What the narcotics boat debate misses - Breaking Defense

"International law doesn't evolve by treaty alone. It evolves through state practice, which is how states interpret, stretch, and sometimes break the rules when the system can't contain new threats. The law of armed conflict, built for mid-twentieth-century wars between states, was never designed for the world of fragmented governance, global crime, and hybrid networks that blur the line between criminality and warfare."

"When law meets the vacuum of state failure, practice fills the gap. When weak states, transnational crime, and global commerce collide, the rules of international law bend, and they usually bend first under US pressure. Critics label such actions illegal or immoral, but this misses the complexity of how law evolves. Every major change in the use-of-force regime from humanitarian intervention to counterterrorism began as something unlawful."

"Over time, repetition and multilateral participation transformed what began as violations into accepted practice. The real question for narcotics interdiction is not whether it violates the law today, but whether states can meet the same standards that made past deviations sustainable: clear necessity, proportionality, transparency, and restraint. If strikes on narcotics vessels are ever to gain legitimacy, they will need not only justification but proof of humanity."

Recent strikes on alleged narcotics-smuggling vessels have generated polarized legal and moral debate, with critics invoking the UN Charter's ban on the use of force and defenders citing the devastation of synthetic opioids and illicit profits as grounds for decisive action. International law evolves through state practice rather than treaty alone, with states often stretching or breaking rules when confronted by new threats. The law of armed conflict was designed for twentieth-century interstate wars and is poorly suited to fragmented governance, transnational crime, and hybrid networks. When state failure creates vacuums, practice fills gaps, often driven by US pressure. Historical precedents show initial unlawfulness can become accepted through repetition and multilateral participation, but legitimacy requires clear necessity, proportionality, transparency, restraint, and demonstrable humanity.

Read at Breaking Defense