Left without any means of income with both the family’s breadwinners dead, she had to drop out of the vocational course she was on and spiralled into a deep depression. She eventually recovered. “When I looked at my baby, I saw my husband in her, so I picked myself up and faced life bravely,” she explained. She said, though, it is still hard financially, as she also supports her mother-in-law.

Gito’s father, and Andrea’s husband and father-in-law, were just a few of the estimated tens of thousands of victims of the brutally repressive anti-drugs policy implemented by former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.

For years, people like Gito and Andrea have fought an often seemingly futile battle for justice for their loved ones even as local and international rights groups have detailed the horrific crimes committed under Duterte’s “war on drugs”.

But a recent hearing at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands, has given them, and others, hope that they could see justice.

Both Gito and Andrea, along with other relatives of people who were killed under Duterte’s violent crackdown on drug use, were at the Hague during confirmation hearings between February 23 and 27 to decide whether Duterte should stand trial on charges of crimes against humanity linked to his deadly anti-drug crackdown.

Philippines: ICC hearing gives survivors of Duterte’s 'drug war' hope

The Global Commission on Drug Policy (GCDP) expresses grave concern over recent lethal airstrikes authorised by the United States on boats in the vicinity of Latin America and the Caribbean, which are allegedly linked to drug trafficking. Reports indicate that these strikes have killed more than 80 people since early September. These actions represent a deeply troubling escalation of punitive enforcement practices which raise serious concerns regarding compliance with international law and human rights standards.

The GCDP aligns with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, in calling for an immediate halt to these operations. The High Commissioner has made it clear that these actions “find no justification in international law” and that “these attacks – and their mounting human cost – are unacceptable”. He has further emphasized that the intentional use of lethal force is only lawful “as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life”, a condition which, based on available information, was not met.

Addressing organised crime is a legitimate objective, but it should be pursued through strict adherence to international human rights norms and standards.

U.S. lethal strikes in Caribbean expose the failures of punitive drug war

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has again dismissed Donald Trump’s threat of military action against drug cartels inside her country, telling reporters: “It’s not going to happen.”

Sheinbaum made the comments on Tuesday morning in response to the US president’s latest warning that he could authorise strikes in Mexico.

“Would I want strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? OK with me, whatever we have to do to stop drugs,” Trump said on Monday, adding that he’s “not happy with Mexico” and that the US government has drug corridors from Mexico “under major surveillance”.

Sheinbaum said that the Trump administration later clarified it would only intervene with Mexico’s permission.

“We are not going to ask for it because we do not want intervention from any foreign government,” she said.

Sheinbaum pointed to the 19th-century Mexican-American war as a warning of what could happen if US troops were allowed into Mexico: “The last time the United States came to intervene in Mexico, they took half of the territory.”

Sheinbaum, who took power a few months before Trump returned to the White House, has received plaudits for her calm but firm handling of bilateral relations under intense pressure.

Earlier this month, she denied reports that Washington planned to send troops into Mexico, noting that she had repeatedly rejected such offers from Trump. “We do not agree with any process of interference or interventionism,” she said.

Mexico's President Sheinbaum dismisses Trump’s threat of sending troops to Mexico

Over the last one hundred years, the global drug prohibition regime has established an innovative, resilient, corrupt, extractivist and transnational economic system. 

By criminalizing plants of traditional use and their users, prohibitionist policy ensures that the violence of repression and environmental destruction remain localized in certain territories and social groups, while financial profits circulate across borders. 

It is a system that rewards logistical control, territorial monopoly and infrastructural camouflage while punishing transparency and community governance. Its intersectional effects are particularly visible in Latin America due to the geographic concentration of coca and cocaine production. 

Prohibition transformed coca, a sacred Indigenous plant, into the raw material of a war economy — without ever reducing the production or use of cocaine. Instead, supply and demand continue to break historical records.

From forest to dust: Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the prohibition of the coca and cocaine production chain in the Amazon Basin and Brazil

 – Repeated and systematic lethal attacks by the United States military on boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific raise grave concerns about the commission of potential international crimes, UN experts* warned today.

“These attacks appear to be unlawful killings carried out by order of a Government, without judicial or legal process allowing due process of law,” the experts said.

Since 2 September 2025 there have been at least 15 strikes reported by U.S. officials, with 64 persons alleged to have been killed, and three survivors.

 that the attacks were against suspected illicit drug traffickers, and submitted that they were conducted as part of a fight against “narco-traffickers” or “narco-terrorists” operated by groups which the United States has designated as terrorist organisations.

Unprovoked lethal strikes by the United States against vessels at sea may amount to international crimes: UN experts

More than 100 U.S. and international organisations have urged Congress to investigate President Trump’s lethal military strikes in the Caribbean and his deployment of military forces in U.S. communities. The sign-on letter denounces these actions as unlawful, escalating the failed and violent “war on drugs”.

 Executive Overreach Regarding Extrajudicial Killings in International Waters And Militarized Responses in U.S. Communities

Dear Chair Wicker, Chair Rogers, Ranking Member Reed, and Ranking Member Smith:

We write on behalf of the 108 undersigned U.S. and international civil society organizations to sound the alarm about President Trump’s escalated U.S. military engagement in law enforcement and drug control operations. We respectfully urge the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services of the United States Congress to formally investigate the lethal military strikes that took place in September and October 2025 in the Caribbean Sea against vessels alleged to be carrying illegal drugs, as well as the Administration’s deployment of the National Guard and active duty military personnel for law enforcement purposes in U.S. communities. Based on the available information, the recent lethal strikes on alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean have no basis in either U.S. or international law and appear to constitute extrajudicial executions. President Trump’s assertion of sweeping authority to wield lethal military force against alleged drug smugglers and his vows to order more such strikes require urgent action by Congress to prevent further harms.

Military Strikes in September and October 2025

Without congressional authorization, the Trump Administration deployed navy warships and other military assets to the Southern Caribbean. The stated mission of this military operation was to counter drug trafficking. On September 2, on Trump’s orders, the U.S. military struck a boat alleged to be transporting drugs, killing all eleven people reportedly on board. The military strikes were supposedly targeting members of Tren de Aragua, which was designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. On September 15, the U.S. military struck another vessel alleged to be transporting drugs in the Caribbean, killing three people on board. On September 16, the president told reporters that a third had also been destroyed, claiming “We knocked off actually three boats, not two, but you saw two.” On October 3, the military conducted a fourth strike, killing all on board, according to U.S. officials. On October 14, the president stated that a fifth boat strike took place killing six people.

The White House justification for these killings does not pass legal scrutiny under national or international law. President Trump claims that these actions were taken to further U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. However, his Administration has not provided any evidence that could justify the premeditated killing of people on board the vessels, nor has it referenced any plausible legal or constitutional authority for conducting these lethal military strikes. No evidence has been presented that would suggest the boats were armed or were preparing to attack the nearby U.S. military vessels. To the contrary, recent reporting indicates that the first boat appeared to be turning around when it was pursued and struck repeatedly until it was destroyed. Nor has the administration explained why the usual interdiction process (arresting those on board) was not used and options short of lethal force were considered inadequate.

Threat of Continued Military Strikes without Legal Authority

Trump Administration officials have boasted about the lethal strikes and vowed to conduct more such strikes against those they deem to be “narcoterrorists” without providing a clear strategic and legal justification to Congress or the public. On his recent visit to Mexico and Ecuador, Secretary Rubio has encouraged those and other governments to cooperate with the U.S. campaign, claiming that: “They're going to help us find these people and blow them up, if that's what it takes.” The administration has deployed fighter jets to a Puerto Rico airfield, and are reportedly considering options to strike alleged cartels inside Venezuela. Secretary of Defense Hegseth has also claimed the boat strikes are part of a broader U.S. military campaign in the region.

Throughout this summer, President Trump has deployed, and threatened to deploy, the National Guard and Marines to cities within the United States. In Los Angeles, as communities protested against the dangerous actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Administration responded with the deployment of war-trained military officers and predator drones. Weeks later, the president federalized Washington, D.C. law enforcement and sent hundreds of National Guard, immigration, and other federal agents to address “crime.” The Administration has also moved to send federal troops to Memphis, Chicago, and Portland to crack down on crime. These actions, whether they come in the form of increased deployments in the Caribbean, Latin America, or in U.S. cities themselves, are interconnected facets of presidential overreach.

This executive overreach marks the intensification of failed, antiquated drug war logic that has been used for decades to militarize public safety as both a foreign policy and domestic policy within the United States. The decades-long war on drugs in Latin America has failed to curb drug trafficking in the Western Hemisphere, while fueling violence and resulting in grave human rights violations. There’s no evidence that leaning into this failed approach will help communities struggling with addiction, especially in the face of dramatic funding cuts to public health. Despite trillions of dollars spent to stop the illicit drug supply, illegal drugs remain plentiful and readily available. Crackdowns are short-lived, markets adjust, and drug suppliers respond to enforcement pressures by devising and producing more potent and dangerous drugs that are easier to conceal and transport. For example, when the U.S. federal government criminalized all fentanyl-related substances in 2018, overdose deaths rose by 60% in four years—from 67,367 deaths in 2018, to 107,941 in 2022. The policy further opened the door for newer drugs to enter the market and our streets. The Trump administration’s choice to engage in lethal military operations against those suspected to be transporting drugs is a deeply alarming escalation of this failed approach.

The lethal military strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean that have been conducted by the Trump administration in September and October appear to have been entirely lawless acts, and may be merely the opening salvos in a wider military campaign. This situation demands a prompt and thorough response from Congress. We therefore urge you to aggressively conduct congressional oversight, act to prevent any more such killings from taking place, ensure proper accountability under the law for those responsible, and create clear legal and funding limits on the Executive’s sweeping claims for the authority to engage in such lethal strikes.

Open letter: Executive overreach regarding extrajudicial killings in international waters and militarized responses in U.S. communities

The global war on drugs as authoritarian statecraft and its human rights costs

Cocaine trafficking through West Africa fuels local addiction

Despite rift with U.S., can Colombia revolutionize global drug policy?

Earlier this year, world leaders agreed on a landmark resolution to review the global drug policy regime during the 68th session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna. For more than six decades, international drug policy has been largely shaped by the U.S.-led “War on Drugs,” which has prioritized strict controls and punitive enforcement.

Now, there is increasing global recognition that existing policies have failed. Both drug production and consumption are higher than ever. In 2023, 316 million people consumed illegal drugs worldwide, a 22 percent increase from a decade prior. Cocaine is the fastest-growing illicit drug market, and nowhere has it grown faster than in Colombia. Between 2014 and 2023, coca cultivation in the country—which supplies 67 percent of the world’s coca—surged by 266 percent, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.

As the failures of prohibitionist policies have become more apparent, alternative approaches are gaining ground. Colombia, in particular, is trying to flip the script by spearheading global action for drug policy reform.

Yet whether Bogotá can transform the rigid U.N. drug system remains uncertain. Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first avowedly leftist president, has pushed a progressive drug policy abroad. But he relies on the United States for counternarcotics aid and security cooperation, and this week, Washington decertified Bogotá as a drug control partner for the first time in nearly 30 years, with U.S. President Donald Trump saying that it is “failing demonstrably” in its counternarcotics efforts.

“President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations,” the 

 on August 8. “The order provides an official basis for the possibility of direct military operations at sea and on foreign soil against cartels.”

Using U.S. military force overseas against profit-seeking criminal organizations would be a grave mistake. If carried out in other nations’ territories without their governments’ consent, it would be considered a “breach of the peace” or an “act of aggression” under the UN Charter, or an “armed attack” under the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. In Latin America and the Caribbean, where sensitivities about U.S. military intervention are strong and cut across the political spectrum, few would find claims of “self-defense” convincing, and relations could be set back for many years.

International norms, though, are far from the only reason why military interventions against organized crime would be grave mistakes. They don’t make sense either practically or strategically. Here are five reasons why.

US: Five reasons why Trump’s anti-cartel military plan will fail

Over the years, the United States has waged a so-called ‘war on drugs’ in Latin America, adopting a strategy of geopolitical control that criminalises people, benefits transnational capital, and justifies military interference.

 has increased following President Donald Trump’s order to deploy troops and warships near Venezuela’s coast. 

This measure, framed by the White House as an effort to “use all its power” to “stop the flow of drugs” from Latin America, was justified by 

 that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro leads an “illegitimate” government that constitutes a “narcotrafficking cartel”. Caracas has vehemently rejected this claim. 

Beyond the deployment of troops, the justification used by the Trump administration to “combat” drug trafficking in Latin America echoes the failed “war on drugs” that Washington has waged on the region for decades.

In fact, this new threat of military action confirms the failure of the very policy.

Transnational & organised crime

Philippines: ICC hearing gives survivors of Duterte’s 'drug war' hope

U.S. lethal strikes in Caribbean expose the failures of punitive drug war

Mexico's President Sheinbaum dismisses Trump’s threat of sending troops to Mexico

From forest to dust: Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the prohibition of the coca and cocaine production chain in the Amazon Basin and Brazil

Unprovoked lethal strikes by the United States against vessels at sea may amount to international crimes: UN experts

Open letter: Executive overreach regarding extrajudicial killings in international waters and militarized responses in U.S. communities

The global war on drugs as authoritarian statecraft and its human rights costs

Cocaine trafficking through West Africa fuels local addiction

Despite rift with U.S., can Colombia revolutionize global drug policy?

Despite rift with U.S., can Colombia revolutionize global drug policy?

US: Five reasons why Trump’s anti-cartel military plan will fail

A flawed policy: The US war on drugs in Latin America criminalises people