Castro, 94, headed Cuba’s armed forces at the time, and later served as the island’s president.

The seven-count indictment charges all six defendants with conspiracy to kill US nationals. Castro and one pilot, Lorenzo Alberto Perez-Perez, also face two counts of destruction of aircraft and four counts of murder. Only one defendant, Luis Raul Gonzalez-Pardo Rodriguez, 65, is in US custody, awaiting sentencing on an unrelated immigration charge; the rest, including Castro, are in Cuba.

According to the indictment, three unarmed Cessnas left Opa-Locka Airport on Feb. 24, 1996, to patrol the Florida Straits for migrants fleeing Cuba. Cuban MiG jets destroyed two with air-to-air missiles over international waters, killing Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre Jr., Mario de la Peña and Pablo Morales. Prosecutors allege the attack followed months of planning by Cuban intelligence agents who had infiltrated the group.

Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel called the charges “a political maneuver, devoid of any legal foundation.”

The charges extend a Trump administration push to pursue foreign leaders in US courts. In January, US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a raid on Caracas and flew him to New York to face “narco-terrorism” charges. Cuba, a close Maduro ally, said 32 of its personnel were killed in that operation.

Castro’s indictment also lands amid the sharpest US-Cuba tensions in years. Cuba has been on the US “state sponsors of terrorism” list since January 2021; Trump reversed a last-minute Biden effort to remove it shortly after returning to office, and his administration issued sweeping new sanctions this month targeting Cuba’s military-run economic sector and dozens of regime officials. Havana denies sponsoring terrorism.

From JURIST, May 20. Used with permission.

Note: The Brothers to the Rescue group also played a role in the Cuba Five case. The National Security Archives cites declassified FAA documents indicating that the group deviated from filed flight plans and sought to provoke a response from the Cuban military.

Map: Perry-Castañeda Library

CLIP additionally examined the impact of the strikes on the overall flow of drugs, and concluded that conventional and internationally coordinated anti-narcotics operations that cause no deaths are more effective than the boat strikes.

From The New Humanitarian, May 15. Internal links added.

US Coast Guard via Wikimedia Commons

The hearings, scheduled to run from May 4-11 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, mark the most consequential phase yet in a case Guyana filed in March 2018 seeking a final, binding ruling that the Arbitral Award of 1899, which established the boundary between what was then the colony of British Guiana and Venezuela, remains valid under international law. Guyana opened proceedings with its first round of oral arguments. Venezuela is expected to present its arguments next week.

The dispute dates to the second half of the nineteenth century, when the United Kingdom and Venezuela both claimed the territory between the Essequibo and Orinoco rivers. An international tribunal of British, American and Russian arbitrators unanimously awarded the territory to British Guiana in 1899, and a subsequent 1905 boundary agreement adhered to that decision. Venezuela accepted the boundary for more than 60 years before reversing its position on the eve of Guyana’s independence in 1966, arguing that the award was a product of collusion between British and Russian arbitrators.

The ICJ already ruled twice that it has jurisdiction to hear the case. In December 2020, the court affirmed its jurisdiction, and in April 2023 it rejected Venezuela’s preliminary objectionto admissibility, clearing the path to the current merits phase. The court also issued provisional measures ordering Venezuela to refrain from any action that would alter Guyana’s administration and control of the disputed territory. In May 2025, the court strengthened those measures by ordering Venezuela not to conduct or prepare elections in the region.

Venezuela has repeatedly defied the court’s authority. In December 2023, the Venezuelan government held a consultative referendum in which voters endorsed the creation of a “Guayana Esequiba” state. In April 2024, President Nicolas Maduro promulgated an “Organic Law in Defense of Guayana Esequiba,” purporting to formally incorporate the Essequibo into Venezuelan territory, create administrative units for oil and mineral exploitation there, and establish legislative and executive offices. Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodriguez, who assumed the role after the US military operation that led to Maduro’s capture earlier this year, stated in August 2025 that Venezuela would ignore the ICJ’s final ruling.

Tensions mounted in the weeks leading up to the hearings. Guyana’s President Irfaan Ali wrote to Caribbean Community (CARICOM) chairman Terrance Drew protesting a brooch worn by Rodriguez during visits to Grenada and Barbados that depicted a map of Venezuela including Essequibo, calling it a “calculated and provocative assertion” of Venezuela’s territorial claim. CARICOM cautioned member states against using diplomatic engagements within the Community to legitimize claims currently before the court.

Guyana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the country approaches the hearings with full confidence in the strength of its case. The government has received support from CARICOM, the Commonwealth, the European Union, and the Organization of American States. Guyana currently produces approximately 750,000 barrels of oil per day, largely from reserves in and around the Essequibo region, making the court’s eventual ruling one of the highest-stakes territorial decisions in recent ICJ history.

From JURIST, May 4. Used with permission.

See also our podcast “Geopolitics of the Essequibo dispute”

Map: Google

The UN resident coordinator in Cuba, Francisco Pichon, said the humanitarian situation has reached a critical point following the US oil blockade imposed in January. He added that the population remains in need of urgent humanitarian aid despite an oil shipment from Russia in late March that the US administration chose not to interfere with.

Pichon explained that disruption of the country’s electricity system has further exacerbated the crisis, resulting in interruptions of essential services such as health care and water access. Electricity shortages have forced medical authorities to postpone over 96,000 surgeries and delayed immunization for thousands of children. Officials also noted that vulnerable groups, including elderly citizens, people with disabilities, and women, are the most affected by the humanitarian crisis.

Decreases in available energy, combined with the destruction from Hurricane Melissa, have significantly hindered humanitarian assistance from the UN and its partners. In response, the UN has created a targeted Action Plan to address the urgent needs of Cubans, focusing on delivering humanitarian aid in priority sectors such as health care, water, sanitation, and food security.

The Action Plan includes steps to transition toward sustainable energy sources and reduce oil dependence, such as the installation of solar power and the reinforcement of water pumping infrastructure.

Pichon said the UN continues to cooperate with national authorities and the private sector in Cuba to identify logistical solutions that guarantee the viability of aid operations, but that additional funding is still required to fill the $68 million gap in the UN budget.

Cuba has long experienced an economic crisis and energy shortage that have worsened over time due to US economic sanctions and oil embargo, which include the imposition of trade tariffs on third countries that send oil to the island nation. The blockade has triggered an energy emergency, given that Cuba currently relies on imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela.

The UN has condemned the US action, describing it as a “unilateral economic coercion” and a violation of international law.

Amid the tightening sanctions, Cuba has experienced repeated natural disasters, including hurricanes and earthquakes, resulting in significant infrastructure damage, destruction of homes, and the displacement of thousands.

From JURIST, April 7. Used with permission.

See our last report on the crisis in Cuba.

Photo: Виктор Пинчук via Wikimedia Commons

HRW said international law makes a clear distinction between areas where use of lethal force is lawful, explaining:

Outside of armed conflict, the deliberate, lethal use of force is only lawful when strictly necessary to protect life. Suspected criminals are not otherwise lawful targets for these deliberately lethal US strikes, and no information has been released to the public showing that any of the people targeted and killed posed an imminent threat to the life of any person.

The statement came in response to an announcement from the Pentagon’s Southern Command on March 25 that the US carried out a “lethal kinetic strike” on a boat allegedly engaged in drug trafficking. The strike killed three individuals, and was the 47th such strike the US has carried out on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since September 2025, resulting in 163 total deaths.

The US has persistently built up military assets in the Caribbean amid recent tension with Venezuela, culminating in January’s Pentagon raid on Caracas in which President Nicolás Maduro was captured and brought to the US to stand trial. President Donald Trump and other US officials argue that the continuing strikes on small vessels have saved thousands from overdose deaths, but commentators and human rights organizations have noted the lack of evidence backing these claims.

From JURIST, April 2. Used with permission. Internal links added.

US Coast Guard via Wikimedia Commons

On Jan. 3, the Trump administration announced that it had conducted a raid on Venezuela, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. President Trump said he would “run Venezuela,” directing the country’s oil industry with the compliance of Maduro’s successors. Two days later, Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty in US federal court to charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and weapons offenses.

Amnesty condemned the capture, stating that it was an unlawful use of force and violated the UN Charter, articles 2(3) and 2(4). Article 2(3) states that members shall “settle their international disputes by peaceful means.” Article 2(4) prohibits use of force, stating: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Amnesty also stated that the US violated UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, which holds that “a state’s first use of armed force in violation of the Charter is prima facie evidence of an act of aggression, including bombardment or attacks on another state’s armed forces.”

Said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s secretary general:

Crimes against humanity do not end with Maduro’s removal. Venezuelan victims, survivors, and their families continue to carry physical and psychological scars. The fate and whereabouts of many people subjected to enforced disappearance remain unresolved. The state machinery responsible for those crimes is still firmly in place, now supported by the US authorities’ involvement…

Venezuelan victims have a right to truth, justice, and reparation for crimes against humanity they have suffered. We call on the International Criminal Court to expedite its work, including issuing arrest warrants when the evidentiary threshold is met. Justice delayed is justice denied, especially for Venezuelans who have waited years to be heard. However, the US administration’s actions currently make the prospect of any potential justice proceedings concerning Nicolás Maduro much more challenging and complex.

Amnesty called for adherence to the UN Charter, and for the US to cease lethal force against suspected drug boats, as well as the use of force or threat of use of force against Venezuela.

From JURIST, Feb. 4. Used with permission.

Note: Resolution 3314 has also been invoked to condemn Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Photo: USS Gerald R. Ford. Credit: US Navy via Wikimedia Commons

The court concluded that the government has violated the right to private and family life of the residents of Bonaire under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

In regard to mitigation, the court found that while the Dutch Climate Act sets a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, neither the act nor its 2023 amendment set intermediate emissions-reduction targets. Both parties agreed that there was less than a 5% likelihood that the Netherlands could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 43% compared to 2019 by 2030. Given the failure to quantify its remaining emission allowance, the court concluded that the Netherlands’ mitigation measures do not satisfy its convention and treaty obligations.

The court also noted the lack of a climate adaptation plan, sufficient scientific research, and adequate financial resources for Bonaire. These inadequacies persist despite the government’s acknowledgment that Bonaire is particularly vulnerable to climate change.

In addition, the ruling found that the government did not provide sufficient procedural safeguards to Bonaire residents, including access to information and public participation.

The recent advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice significantly influenced the Dutch court in determining the state’s obligations in regard to climate change. In its judgment, the Dutch court affirmed that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement are legally binding on the Netherlands, alongside other regional and international human rights treaties. These treaty obligations include the duty to contribute equitably to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Apart from the right to private and family life, the court also held that the lack of adaptation measures for Bonaire, contrasting comparable measures already in place for the European Netherlands, amounted to discrimination against residents of Bonaire. This, the court found, violates Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. According to Greenpeace, this ruling marks the first time that a court has recognized a state’s failure to develop climate policies for a municipality as discrimination.

Greenpeace brought the class action on behalf of approximately 26,000 residents on Bonaire. Responding to the ruling, Marieke Vellekoop, director of Greenpeace Netherlands, said that incoming prime minister Rob Jetten must now allocate funding for the mandated climate measures on Bonaire.

From JURIST, Jan. 29. Used with permission.

See our last reports on Bonaire, the UN climate process, and climate change litigation.

See also our podcast on the World Court advisory opinion.

Photo: Dialogue Earth

The order states that any judicial proceedings against funds from “the sale of natural resources” from the Venezuelan government would inhibit efforts to “ensure economic and political stability” in the country. It adds that they would interfere with numerous US foreign policy objectives, such as ending irregular migration, cracking down on the influx of narcotics, and protecting against foreign actors such as Iran and Hezbollah. It describes potential judicial processes as an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and declares a national emergency.

There are three legal bases for the order, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president a broad range of economic powers in national emergencies; the National Emergencies Act, which allows the president to declare national emergencies; and Section 301 of Title 3 of the US Code, which allows the president to delegate powers.

This order follows statements from Trump that US oil companies will invest billions in Venezuela, with his Energy Secretary Chris Wright saying that the US will control and market Venezuela’s oil “indefinitely.” The president called a meeting on Friday with oil executives to discuss rebuilding the country’s oil infrastructure, and announced that 30 million barrels of oil, worth $4 billion, are currently on their way to the US.

The CEO of ExxonMobil, Darren Woods, expressed concern about conditions in Venezuela, and said that the country is currently “un-investable.” Trump responded angrily that he was “inclined” to keep ExxonMobil out of Venezuela.

Companies including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips say that Venezuela owes them billions of dollars over lost investments. Trump’s executive order could hinder these companies from recovering their claims.

From JURIST, Jan. 12. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Map: Perry-Castañeda Library

Listen on SoundCloud or via Patreon.

Production by Chris Rywalt

We ask listeners to support us at one of our three tiers via Patreon: Become a Basic Supporter for just $1.25 per weekly podcast ($5 per month), or a Special Supporter for $2.50 per podcast ($10 per month), or a Major Rant Enabler for $6.25 per podcast ($25 per month). We now have 61 paid subscribers. If you appreciate our work, please become Number 62!

Image mash-up by Chris Rywalt, with material from Tamara Wyndham  and CBC

Did Delcy capitulate?
Meanwhile in Washington, White House officials were briefing members of Congress, who were not notified beforehand of the Jan. 3 military operation in which Maduro was captured.

And in Venezuela, Maduro’s groomed successor, newly inaugurated acting president Delcy Rodríguez, showed signs of capitulating to the pressure from Washington. After the Pentagon raid in which Maduro was taken (which also claimed the lives of at least 60 people, including civilians and several members of a Cuban security detail), Rodriguez defiantly stated in a televised address: “There is only one president in Venezuela, and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”

But the next day, she struck a conciliatory tone, writing on social media: “We invite the US government to collaborate with us on an agenda of cooperation oriented towards shared development within the framework of international law to strengthen lasting community coexistence.”

Bellicose mid-flight press conference
Rodríguez is under explicit threat from Trump, who told reporters on a Dec. 4 flight from Florida to DC that if she doesn’t cooperate “she will face a situation probably worse than Maduro.” When asked about his boast that he will “run” Venezuela, Trump responded: “We’re dealing with the people. We’re dealing with the people that just got sworn in. And don’t ask me who’s in charge, because I will give you an answer and it’ll be very controversial.” When the reporter took this bait and asked him what that meant, he replied: “It means we’re in charge.”

Trump was similarly lacking subtlety in his claim to Venezuela’s oil: “The oil companies are ready to go. They’re going to go in. They’re going to rebuild the infrastructure. You know, we built it to start off with many years ago. They took it away. You can’t do that.”

Apparently refering to Venezuelan efforts to extend state control over the country’s oil resources following US investment in the sector over a century ago, he added: “It was the greatest theft in the history of America. Nobody has ever stolen our property like they have. They took our oil away from us. They took the infrastructure away and all that infrastructure is rotted and decayed, and the oil companies are going to go in and rebuild it.”

And indeed, shares of Chevron, the last US oil company that was authorized to operate in Venezuela, soared as much as 10% in pre-market trading after Trump’s comment. Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips shares also rose around 4%.

Queried about his supposed isolationism and antipathy to “nation-building,” Trump explicitly invoked the notion of Latin America as a US influence sphere, which was articulated in his recent National Security Strategy. He said of Venezuela: “This isn’t a country that’s on the other side of the world. This isn’t a country like we have to travel 24 hours in an airplane. This is Venezuela. It’s in our area, the Donroe Doctrine.”

Colombia, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland
He went on to directly threaten Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro: “He has cocaine mills, cocaine factories. He’s not going to be doing it very long.” So there will be another military operation?, the reporter asked. Trump: “It sounds good to me.”

Mexico was next. Invoking the flow of migrants across the US southern border, Trump reiterated his recent threat of military intervention: “Mexico has to get their act together, because they’re pouring through Mexico, and we’re going to have to do something.”

And even Greenland: “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. And Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you. You know what Denmark did recently to boost up security in Greenland? They added one more dogsled. It’s true.”

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen prompty responded: “This is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.”

And Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said in a statement: “It is necessary to reaffirm that in Mexico the people are in charge and that we are a free, independent and sovereign country. Cooperation, yes. Subordination and intervention, no.”

But Secretary of State Marco Rubio meanwhile warned that Cuba could be next, responding to a reporter’s question at a DC press conference: “Yeah, look, if I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned.” (PBS NewsHour, FreedomNews.tv, CNN, The Hill, Politico, NDTV, NBC News)

Photo: US Navy via Latin America Reports