Estimated reading time: 7 min
Summary
- On December 10, the U.S. seized the oil tanker Skipper during the military operation Southern Spear in international waters near Venezuela.
- The seizure was controversial because it occurred in international waters, raising questions about the legality of the U.S. action.
- The U.S. claim is based on the ultra-extraterritoriality of the American legal system, the origins of which lie in national security measures following the 9/11 attacks.
- Evidence indicates that the Skipper was falsifying its position, characterising it as a pirate vessel, in which case international law does not require cooperation for seizures.
- The revocation of the Magnitsky sanctions against Moraes may be a geopolitical gesture by the United States to Brazil, well-timed as Maduro asks for Lula’s support against the seizure of the oil tanker.
At an undefined time on December 10, in the context of the military operation Southern Spear, the United States seized a VLCC (very large crude carrier). The incident occurred in international Caribbean waters, near the coast of Venezuela. The seized vessel is an oil tanker named Skipper (with IMO registration 9304667).
This is not the first time the United States has used its military force to proceed with the apprehension/arrest/seizure of ships or their cargo on the high seas.
The apprehension/arrest/seizure of a ship on the high seas constitutes a typical conduct of interest for International Justice.
It was reported that “the Maduro Government appeals to Lula and the presidents of Colombia and Mexico for unity against ‘threats’ from Trump.”
Traditionally, Brazil has been a “neutral” country in international conflicts, which is a prudent stance. However, Brazil’s geopolitical importance in South America may require the Government to take some position, even if preliminary, on the specific fact of the Skipper‘s seizure.
In the case of the Skipper, the basis for the seizure of the oil tanker by the United States Government is not international law but the enforcement of U.S. judicial decisions, therefore, extraterritorial domestic law.
“In simple terms, extraterritoriality is the power that a State assigns to itself, so that its sovereignty, through its laws and administrative or judicial orders, is exercised outside of its territorial limits.”
If the Skipper had been seized by American authorities in their own territorial waters, that is, in their exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (Article 73 of UNCLOS/Law of the Sea), there would be neither surprise nor as much speculation; however, as the seizure occurred in international waters, the act has generated much discussion.
Can a State confer upon itself the power to act sovereignly in territorial waters over vessels navigating there?
According to the Law of the Sea – UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the answer is, in principle, no. The seizure would depend on international legal cooperation, meaning the country under whose flag the vessel sails would have to agree to the seizure. However, Article 105 of the Law of the Sea provides the exception of the “seizure” of a “pirate” ship:
It is noted that the United States is not a signatory to that Convention; consequently, it could not allege Article 105 in its favour. However, the United States largely considers the Law of the Sea as a norm of customary maritime law and, therefore, considers itself partially bound to comply with its precepts.
Is there evidence that the Skipper is indeed a pirate? Yes. There are records that the vessel has been falsifying its position through fraudulent mechanisms, by which the oil tanker is indicated to be in one place, for example, in China, when it was actually in the Caribbean.
No vessel operating in good faith defrauds its position at sea, putting maritime navigation at risk.
This information was not obtained from American sources or entities “interested in the seizure” of the oil tanker, but obtained from an impartial entity located in London, Pole Star Global. This is what Pole Star Global published about the Skipper:
The analysis of the SKIPPER’s movements from November 2024 to November 2025 revealed a vessel operating far outside the bounds of legitimate trade. The retrospective review documented multiple evasion techniques employed across three continents.
The quantitative evidence was striking:
A geographical deception of 1,200 nautical miles — transmitting a position off the coast of Guyana while physically loading at a Venezuelan terminal. 200 days without AIS transmissions — more than half of the observation period. Six separate “dark” periods, the longest lasting 83 days. Six at-sea cargo operations with draft variations of 9 to 10 meters — far from any port infrastructure.
Similar information can also be found in the Marine Traffic Report and the Lloyd’s List Coverage.
Thus, the seizure of the Skipper under public international law is correct, given that, so far, the owner of the seized oil tanker has not presented themselves publicly, nor has the vessel been defended by the Government of any country.
The legal claim of United States extraterritorial law is that the Skipper, which was formerly called Adisa, was subject to a federal administrative proceeding before the OFAC – Office of Foreign Assets Control, an agency that “controls foreign assets.”
This “control over foreign assets” must be translated, or understood, as the broad power that the United States attributes, extraterritorially, to its laws and its administrative and judicial authorities over people, companies, and transactions that, wherever they may be or whatever their nationality, make use of the dollar in their business and, therefore, pass their transactions through the United States financial system.
This complex U.S. ultra-extraterritoriality is founded on the U.S. Nexus principle, which is not grounded in law but in a “general policy” of U.S. compliance, a modern kind of imperialism, notwithstanding its justification by the necessity of the legitimate defense of the United States in the face of terrorist attacks.
In the specific case of the Skipper, the oil tanker was designated in 2022 under Executive Order No. 13,224, issued by then-President J. W. Bush on September 23, 2001. That is, the U.S. Nexus, to the extent it was applied to the Skipper, is a development of the American reaction to the attack on the Twin Towers (World Trade Centre) on September 11, 2001.
The oil transported by the Skipper was Venezuelan, which adds a political layer to the fact, but does not remove its legal nature, even in the face of the seizure having been carried out in the context of the military operation Southern Spear, as an apparent development of American efforts to destabilise Venezuelan President Maduro.
It is very interesting to note that, amidst the geopolitical repercussions of the Skipper‘s seizure, the United States lifted the restrictions of the Magnitsky Act on Minister Alexandre de Moraes. This attitude can be interpreted as an act of recognition by the American Government that it erroneously made political interventionist use of its extraterritorial legal power and, now, as an act of political goodwill, steps back so that, in Brazil’s view, comparisons are not made between the Magnitsky Act restrictions, then unduly applied to Alexandre de Moraes, and the justified seizure of the Skipper.