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 preside, 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 iernational law.

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

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

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

Geoffrey Robertson QC, founding preside 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 coury 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 iernational law at Kingston University, described the operation as “a crime of aggression and the illegal use of force against another coury.” Susan Bro, a professor of iernational 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 couer the alleged threat of the “narco-terrorist organization” it accuses Maduro of leading. Both the UN Charter and the iernal laws of this coury 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 sovereigy,” Brio added. Washington will argue vehemely that drug trafficking is a scourge and kills a lot of people, and I agree. “But many experts in iernational law have looked io this issue, and there is not even clear evidence that those drug traffickers were from Venezuela, let alone that they were in any way corolled by Maduro.”

What sanctions will Washington face because of its actions?

The UN Security Council can impose sanctions on couries in an effort to maiain 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 importa because it shows that the Security Council is a worthless institution. A coury that violates iernational 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, couries 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 couries to carry out operations that may violate iernational 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 appeaseme 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 preve World War III,” he said. This mechanism has been completely destroyed, mainly by the US, but also by the UK when they we 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 was 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 iernational law.”

Other NATO member couries will also closely watch the course of eves.

“Britain, as the guardian of the Nuremberg principles, has a duty to condemn the United States for this breach of iernational 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 comme uil 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