Thread by @johnkonrad

Everyone knows that so called “double tap” strikes on land are legal, Obama did it all the time, but CNN keeps inviting land lawyers on to say narco terrorists have special privileges at sea.

Let’s look at the admiralty law: 🧵

Source: International law studies @NavalWarCollege

“Rudderless and Adrift: States’
Unwarranted Timidity Respecting
Stateless Vessels
Andrew Norris”

digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewconten…

Ships without a recognized flag, “stateless vessels”, are the outlaws of the ocean. They don’t have a clear nationality, so no country claims responsibility for them.

International law already allows governments to stop, board, and enforce laws against these vessels.

Yet many nations are strangely reluctant to use this authority. That hesitancy creates gaps that drug traffickers, smugglers, and organized crime exploit.

It makes no sense, Governments around the world constantly talk about improving maritime security, and they belong to international agreements that push them to expand enforcement at sea. But when it comes to stateless vessels, they often look the other way.

Under the international law of the sea (UNCLOS), every vessel is supposed to have a nationality meaning it’s registered under a specific country and allowed to fly that country’s flag.

Why that matters:
1.The flag country (the “flag State”) is responsible for safety and rules onboard.
2.The flag State generally controls legal jurisdiction over the ship and those on board.
3.Other countries need to know who to contact if they want to board or investigate the ship.

A vessel is stateless when:
•It isn’t legally registered anywhere, or
•It claims multiple nationalities, or
•Its claim of nationality turns out to be false or unverifiable.

A country can legally treat such a vessel as stateless when the captain gives conflicting information, or the supposed flag State refuses to confirm the vessel as its own.

In other words, if the vessel can’t prove who it belongs to, it belongs to no one.

International law gives countries an “extra enforcement option” when dealing with stateless ships.

Countries may:
•Stop the vessel
•Board it
•Investigate it
•Assert legal jurisdiction over it

Because there’s no flag State involved, there’s no “exclusive jurisdiction” blocking enforcement including the use of harsher enforcement enforcement methods

UNCLOS (the Law of the Sea treaty) never clearly states what a country can or can’t do with stateless vessels. Customary international law is unclear as well, mainly because States behave inconsistently.

So there’s no universally agreed rule saying:
•A State must be passive, or
•A State is forbidden from acting assertively

When international law is silent, the question becomes: what fills the gap?

THE LOTUS PRINCIPLE

This goes back to a famous 1927 international court decision known as the Lotus case.

The core idea:

If international law doesn’t prohibit something, a State is free to do it—unless a rule restricts it.

Put differently:
•States don’t need permission.
•They only need to avoid violating a clear prohibition.

This remains a foundational rule in international law.

U.S. law explicitly treats stateless vessels as being under U.S. jurisdiction.

Examples:
•Drug enforcement at sea
•Illegal fishing enforcement

The U.S. Coast Guard routinely intercepts stateless “go-fast” boats used for smuggling. U.S. courts have upheld this approach, including a recent federal appeals court in 2024, which said the U.S. can treat a vessel as stateless even if the claimed nationality is never confirmed.

In other words:
•silence = not confirmation
•and not confirmation = statelessness

IS THE U.S. APPROACH LEGAL?

Yes. Courts have repeatedly ruled that nothing in international law prohibits it.

If a State wants to use the more assertive approach, international law does not stand in the way.

Some legal commentators claim the Lotus principle is outdated. However:
•modern courts still cite it
•recent high-profile maritime cases rely on it
•scholarly analysis continues to treat it as controlling

In short, rumors of Lotus being “dead” are exaggerated.

CONCLUSION

International law does not prevent States from taking a strong enforcement role against stateless vessels. Quite the opposite — it practically invites them to close jurisdictional loopholes exploited by criminals.

A more assertive approach:
•is legal
•is encouraged by multilateral treaties urging stronger maritime enforcement
•helps prevent lawless zones at sea

So the choice is simple:
Either take harsh action against stateless vessels, or allow criminals to enjoy an unpoliced ocean.

NB: Some international maritime experts claim the United States did not sign UNCLOS so can’t use it as justification for strikes.

This is nonsense. Unlike China, which did sign it but still routinely takes harsh and dangerous action even against coast guard ships in the Philippines… the US Navy still recognizes UNCLOS and not signing it gives us MORE freedom of action, not less.

Now outside the paper I mentioned there is the “San Remo Manual on International Law
Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea”

iihl.org/wp-content/upl…

San Remo states: “How far a State is justified in its military actions against the enemy will depend upon the intensity and scale of the armed attack for which the enemy is responsible and the gravity of the threat posed.”

We have lost more people to drug overdoses since WW2 than to all other armed (yes cartels are armed) conflicts combined so even if you believe it’s war (which it’s not, you can’t declare war on stateless boats) the “scale for which the enemy is responsible” and the “gravity of the threat” are both enormous and give the US plenty of legal authority to not only sink boats but also kill terrorists sailing on them