It's the same with the ICC at the Hague: the US has wisely refused to sign onto that treaty as well and in fact, the Congress has authorized the use of force against the ICC should it try to grab or succeed in grabbing any US official or past or present member of the US armed forces.
A big part of Trump's electoral appeal was to reject the steady entanglement of US power by vague, leftist, international "human rights norms" that have almost always been used to protect enemies of the United States.
As far killing the innocent goes, just about any law enforcement exercise also carries with it the prospect of killing the innocent. The point here, as with any military operation, is to apply force until the opponent stops doing what you are trying to stop or gives in to your demands. In this case, that would be Maduro stopping the cartels and probably also ceasing military cooperation with China and Russia.
RE: if the US is not a formal party to the treaty then, as a matter of US law, its provisions are not binding on officials of the US government.
That argument — while technically accurate in a narrow legal sense — collapses under moral scrutiny when viewed through the lens of global responsibility, ethical leadership, and the rule of law.
Being a global power means modeling responsible behavior, not exploiting legal loopholes. The U.S. often demands accountability from other nations — on human rights, maritime conduct, and international norms. To reject those same standards when inconvenient BECAUSE WE HAVE TGE BIGGER WEAPONS is morally hypocritical.
If the U.S. expects others to follow UNCLOS provisions (e.g., freedom of navigation), it must uphold them itself — even if not formally bound.
Many UNCLOS provisions are considered customary international law — meaning they reflect global consensus and are binding regardless of treaty ratification. WE BENEFIT FROM THESE NORMS.
If the U.S. benefits from these norms (e.g., protection of its ships, rights to innocent passage), it has a duty to respect the reciprocal obligations — including restraint in use of force.
The principle that “we’re not bound, so we can ignore it” undermines the moral foundation of the rule of law.
Law is not just a tool of convenience — it’s a framework for justice. Selective adherence erodes trust, legitimacy, and the moral authority of the U.S. on the world stage.
Destroying vessels based on suspicion — without trial, evidence review, or opportunity for defense — violates basic moral principles of justice.
Even if not legally bound, the U.S. is morally obligated to uphold due process, especially when innocent lives are possibly at stake.
If the U.S. claims it can destroy foreign vessels without being bound by international law, other nations may adopt the same logic — threatening U.S. ships, citizens, and interests.
Upholding international norms protects everyone. Abandoning them invites chaos and retaliation.
Not being bound by a treaty doesn’t absolve a nation of its moral duty to act justly, proportionally, and responsibly. The true test of character is not what law compels, but what conscience demands. I’d like to believe that we are a righteous nation STILL.
RE: As far killing the innocent goes, just about any law enforcement exercise also carries with it the prospect of killing the innocent
I’m sorry, but That argument — while superficially pragmatic — fails morally, legally, and strategically when applied to the deliberate destruction of suspected vessels without due process.
Yes, law enforcement carries risk, but that risk is mitigated by strict rules: proportionality, necessity, accountability, and due process. This is NOT like Israel in Gaza fighting a war of survival and trying to rescue hostages ( there are no hostages here ).
Accidental harm during a war is not the same as preemptively destroying a vessel based on suspicion. One is a tragic byproduct of restraint; the other is a deliberate act without judicial oversight.
There is no equivalence. Killing with intent based on incomplete evidence is not morally equivalent to accidental harm during a war.