%20(4).png)
.png)
In December 2025, the United States dramatically intensified its pressure campaign against Venezuela by seizing and detaining multiple oil tankers linked to the country’s sanctioned oil trade and ordering a naval blockade of vessels entering or leaving Venezuelan ports. These actions, taken under the authority of U.S. sanctions and military directives, have ignited debate among legal scholars, foreign governments, and maritime industry officials about how such measures fit within longstanding international norms governing the seas.
The U.S. operation has included the interception and seizure of at least two large tankers believed to be part of a “shadow fleet” of vessels used to move Venezuelan crude around the world despite sanctions. One of the most notable of these was the Skipper, a supertanker that U.S. authorities allege was sanctioned for involvement in transporting oil tied to illicit networks. A second vessel, the Centuries, was also detained despite not being publicly listed on any sanctions registry at the time, highlighting the broad reach of U.S. enforcement efforts. These operations have involved Coast Guard and military boarding teams, sometimes deploying helicopters to secure compliance on the high seas — a dramatic illustration of how far Washington is willing to go to disrupt sanctioned trade.
Traditionally, the U.S. and other nations have relied on diplomatic pressure and incentives to persuade foreign shipping companies to direct vessels to ports where they could surrender cargoes or face civil forfeiture, a method that avoids the more provocative step of physically seizing ships in international waters. The Trump administration’s recent moves mark a departure from that approach by executing forcible interdictions on the open sea, raising concerns among experts about the precedent such tactics set.
Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other global maritime conventions, vessels are generally subject to the jurisdiction of the nation whose flag they fly and are protected when operating in international waters. While there are provisions allowing for the boarding of vessels suspected of statelessness or other violations, the legality of seizing oil tankers far from U.S. territory — even when sanctions are invoked — is less clear. That ambiguity has trouble practitioners and former maritime lawyers cautioning that using military force to obtain commercial assets could undermine the rules that have governed shipping for decades.
International reactions have underscored the complexity of the situation. China’s foreign ministry criticized the U.S. actions as infringing on sovereignty and security and opposed unilateral measures that could be seen as bullying. Russia’s foreign ministry similarly condemned what it described as a U.S. blockade evoking “piracy” and banditry on the high seas. Venezuela, for its part, has loudly rejected the seizures and blockade, describing them as unlawful acts of aggression that violate customary international law. Caracas has moved to criminalize acts that interfere with its maritime commerce, imposing steep prison terms on anyone deemed to support such actions — a direct response to what it calls a blockade against its oil trade.
From Washington’s perspective, these measures are part of a broader strategy to choke off revenue streams that sustain the Venezuelan government and its president, Nicolás Maduro. U.S. officials argue that the tankers targeted are part of an illicit network that enables sanctions evasion and alleged financing of criminal and extremist activities. The administration has cast its enforcement actions as law enforcement rather than military operations, citing domestic legal statutes that permit extraterritorial seizures of sanctioned assets.
At the same time, the use of terms like “blockade” — which under international law can be tantamount to an act of war if not properly justified — has raised eyebrows among analysts who note the delicate line between economic coercion and armed conflict. The Trump administration has sought to frame its actions as a “quarantine” to avoid the legal implications of a formal blockade, but critics argue that this semantic choice does little to change the substance of what is happening on the high seas.
The broader implications for the global shipping industry are significant. If powerful states begin to assert the right to seize vessels on the basis of unilateral sanctions or broadened interpretations of domestic law, the predictability and stability that underpin maritime trade could be weakened. Other countries, including major trading powers, may feel compelled to adopt similar tactics when it suits their strategic interests, potentially leading to increased friction and reduced freedom of navigation — a core principle of international maritime custom.
Within the United States, these actions have also drawn scrutiny. Some lawmakers warned that aggressive enforcement in international waters could escalate tensions and inadvertently draw the United States into broader conflict. The situation around Venezuela’s oil trade comes amid a larger context of heightened U.S. military presence in the Caribbean and aggressive posturing by both Washington and Caracas.
For now, the legality and long‑term effects of these tanker seizures and blockading measures remain unsettled. Legal challenges in U.S. courts could take years to resolve, while diplomatic efforts to address the dispute at international forums such as the United Nations may shape how other nations view the balance between enforcement of sanctions and adherence to established maritime law.
The episode underscores the tension between national objectives and multilateral norms. In a globalized world where trade routes, energy markets, and geopolitical interests intersect, actions that challenge long‑standing customs at sea are likely to reverberate well beyond the immediate dispute, prompting reflection on how best to maintain order and predictability in international waters while addressing concerns about illicit practices and sanctioned regimes.
