US operations in Venezuela and international laws

According to Isna, Donald Trump said on Saturday morning that the US forces have carried out a “massive attack” on Venezuela, and that its president, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife
“Celia Flores” has been arrested. The pair are now indicted in New York on terrorism and drug charges. Trump has accused Maduro of running a “terrorist drug organization”. However, the operation’s legality has been questioned — and even some of Trump’s allies see it as a violation of international law.

Is the American operation in Venezuela justified according to international law?

Prominent experts in the field of international law told the Guardian about the justification of the US operation in Venezuela according to international law: Washington has violated the provisions of the UN Charter, which was signed in October 1945 and was designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of World War II.

One of the main provisions of this agreement – known as Article 2(4) – stipulates that countries must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.

Geoffrey Robertson QC, founding president of Dotty Street Chambers and former head of the UN war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. He added: “The fact is that America has violated the UN Charter. “This country has committed the crime of aggression, a crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal described as the greatest crime, this is the worst crime.”

Elvira Dominguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as “a crime of aggression and the illegal use of force against another country.” Susan Bro, a professor of international law and associate senior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could only be considered legal if the United States had a UN Security Council resolution or was acting in self-defense. “There’s no evidence in either of those areas,” Bro said.

What will Washington’s possible defense look like?

Washington may try to argue that it attacked Venezuela to counter the alleged threat of the “narco-terrorist organization” it accuses Maduro of leading. Both the UN Charter and the internal laws of this country have established regulations for the use of military force in self-defense. Still, Robertson said, “There is no conceivable way that America could claim, although it undoubtedly will, that this action was taken in self-defense.” If you are going to use self-defense, you must have a true and honest belief that you are going to be attacked with force. “No one has said that the Venezuelan military is going to attack the United States. … The idea that (Maduro) is some kind of drug lord cannot win against the rule that an invasion for regime change is illegal.”

“You have to prove that the drug traffickers were a threat to American sovereignty,” Brio added. Washington will argue vehemently that drug trafficking is a scourge and kills a lot of people, and I agree. “But many experts in international law have looked into this issue, and there is not even clear evidence that those drug traffickers were from Venezuela, let alone that they were in any way controlled by Maduro.”

What sanctions will Washington face because of its actions?

The UN Security Council can impose sanctions on countries in an effort to maintain peace. These sanctions can include trade restrictions, arms embargoes, and travel bans. However, the council’s five members – the US, China, Russia, Britain and France – have veto power over the matter, meaning any action against the US is unlikely.

“Sanctions must be imposed by the Security Council, and the United States is a member with veto power,” Robertson said. This is important because it shows that the Security Council is a worthless institution. A country that violates international law can avoid condemnation simply by vetoing it… The only body that can act will be killed by the US veto.

“Dominguez-Redondo” described this situation as “impossible”. “If the Security Council cannot decide on sanctions, countries can choose whether to follow them or not,” he said. Because the US has veto power, sanctions are never imposed there.

What consequences can this attack cause at the global level?

If the attack on Venezuela has no consequences for the United States, experts believe it could embolden other countries to carry out operations that may violate international law.

“The most obvious consequence is that China will seize the opportunity and attack Taiwan,” Robertson said. Now is the perfect time to do so, bolstered by Trump’s history of attacking Venezuela and, of course, his appeasement of Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. “In fact, I would say that Trump’s attack on Venezuela is a crime of aggression.”

Dominguez-Redondo believes that this could further weaken the UN Security Council. “The Security Council was the mechanism to prevent World War III,” he said. This mechanism has been completely destroyed, mainly by the US, but also by the UK when they went to war in Iraq without authorization. “The Security Council is worn out.”

How does Trump’s attack define the position of America’s allies?

British Prime Minister Kerr Starmer has said he wants to speak to Trump and other allies to establish the facts of the Venezuela operation, but stressed Britain had no role in the invasion and said he believed “we all have to uphold international law.”

Other NATO member countries will also closely watch the course of events.

“Britain, as the guardian of the Nuremberg principles, has a duty to condemn the United States for this breach of international law,” Robertson said. I am saying that leaders who start wars are responsible for the death and destruction that follows. Kerr Starmer has a responsibility, he has withheld comment until the facts are clear – but he will likely be tasked with defending the Nuremberg principles, condemning Trump for violating them with the crime of aggression and leading the free world in trying to moderate the consequences.”

end of message