The reported pursuit and boarding of oil tankers bound for Venezuela marks a troubling escalation that many legal scholars and international observers view as the enforcement of illegal sanctions through force. These actions are not backed by the United Nations, nor are they grounded in multilateral consensus, raising serious questions about their legitimacy under international law. When a single state imposes its domestic policies on vessels operating in international waters, the line between enforcement and coercion is dangerously blurred.
What is being presented as sanctions compliance increasingly resembles unilateral punishment imposed beyond lawful jurisdiction. International waters exist precisely to prevent this kind of overreach. The pursuit of tankers not violating any UN mandated restriction undermines the rules based order that powerful nations often claim to defend. Instead of law, raw power appears to be dictating outcomes at sea.
Boarding In International Waters
The boarding of the tanker Bella 1 while it was en route to Venezuela has ignited outrage because it occurred outside any recognised territorial boundary. International maritime law is explicit in its protections of freedom of navigation. Vessels operating legally under a flag state are not subject to interference without clear legal cause, such as piracy, slavery, or UN authorised enforcement.
None of those conditions appear to apply in this case. The act of boarding a commercial vessel to prevent it from engaging in lawful trade constitutes an aggressive intervention. Critics argue that if such behaviour were carried out by any other state, it would be immediately condemned as piracy. The fact that it is conducted by a global power does not alter its legal character.
Economic Warfare By Naval Force
The active pursuit of a third tanker signals that this is not an isolated incident but a sustained campaign of economic warfare. Venezuela’s oil exports are being targeted not through international agreement but through naval intimidation. This tactic weaponises maritime control to strangle an economy, bypassing diplomatic channels and established legal mechanisms.
Such actions disproportionately affect civilian populations. Oil revenue funds food imports, healthcare supplies, and basic state functions. Disrupting these flows deepens humanitarian suffering while offering no credible pathway to political resolution. Economic coercion enforced at gunpoint at sea sets a precedent that threatens all nations dependent on maritime trade.
International Law Set Aside
The silence or muted response from international institutions has only amplified concern. Maritime conventions exist to prevent precisely this scenario, where powerful states unilaterally decide which trade is acceptable. By disregarding these norms, the United States weakens the very legal frameworks that protect its own shipping interests worldwide.
If international law is selectively applied, it ceases to function as law at all. Smaller nations observing these events are left with a stark message, compliance is demanded not through consensus, but through force. This erosion of legal consistency invites instability and retaliation in other regions.
Redefining Piracy In Plain Sight
Piracy is traditionally understood as the illegal seizure or interference with vessels on the high seas. When tankers are boarded, pursued, or threatened to prevent lawful commerce, the distinction becomes semantic rather than substantive. Modern piracy does not always involve flags with skulls, it can also arrive wrapped in policy language and naval authority.
The danger lies in normalising such conduct. Once interference in international waters is justified by domestic sanctions, any state can claim similar authority. The oceans then become arenas of conflict rather than shared global commons, undermining centuries of maritime practice.
Global Condemnation Is Required
These actions should not be met with quiet acquiescence. International bodies, shipping associations, and sovereign states have a responsibility to condemn behaviour that disregards established law. Failure to do so signals acceptance, and acceptance invites repetition. The precedent being set extends far beyond Venezuela.
Condemnation is not about defending one government over another, it is about defending the principle that no nation has the right to police global trade unilaterally. Upholding international law requires consistency, even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
A Dangerous Path Forward
The pursuit of oil tankers in international waters represents a dangerous shift toward enforcement without legitimacy. It undermines trust, destabilises trade routes, and erodes the legal order that governs the seas. What is framed as sanctions enforcement increasingly resembles state sanctioned piracy.
If left unchallenged, this approach will redefine maritime security in ways that endanger all trading nations. The international community must decide whether the oceans remain governed by law, or whether power alone will determine who may trade and who may not.
The U.S. is in active pursuit of a third oil tanker in international waters off the coast of Venezuela
The tanker Bella 1 was boarded by U.S. personnel while en route to Venezuela to load cargo
