🔗 Share this article

We should not be astonished that the current US president, who previously supported Israel's operations in the Gaza Strip, now seems prepared to disregard legal norms with his threatening stance toward Venezuela and deadly strikes on suspected narcotics boats. Reflecting those concerns voiced by demonstrators across America, the president operates as if he were immune from the law. The only way to control this kind of criminality would be to reveal its harmful implications for his supporters.

Armed Deployments along with Aggressive Measures

Despite his administration's commitment against initiating protracted conflicts, the president has sent a warship to the Caribbean Sea while has been deploying military aircraft close to the Venezuelan coast. Although the Trump administration rejects the claim its goal is ousting the government, some authorities privately admit that seems to be the intention. Removing the nation's autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro, has long been an objective of Marco Rubio, the chief foreign affairs officer.

Whether the president's threats represent empty words or a prelude for military action, they are unlawful. Furthermore, can this saber-rattling provide legal grounds for Trump's illegal attacks – which some label extrajudicial killing – targeting suspected narcotics smugglers originating in Venezuela.

International Law Violations

According to the UN Charter, a document that applies to every country, there is a ban against “the threat or use of force” toward other nations except if approved by the UN's top body and used for defensive purposes in response to military aggression. Given the veto power within the council, there is impossible that it would authorize the US to attack Venezuela. Additionally, can the administration argue an invasion as “self-defense” since Venezuela has not initiated military strikes against the United States.

Humanitarian Intervention Doctrine

But then there is the concept of military action for humanitarian purposes, the notion stating even without Security Council approval, armed intervention could be used to halt mass atrocities? I once supported this doctrine, frequently known as R2P. Human Rights Watch, which the author formerly served, on several occasions sought humanitarian intervention previously. But, the misuse of the doctrine to justify regime change during the Iraq war and Libya has in practice rendered R2P irrelevant. Both countries ended up left in chaos, a situation frequently more severe compared to authoritarian rule. Few invoke R2P today.

Crucially, even in its heyday, such action could only be defended as a last resort to prevent current or impending mass killing and comparable atrocities. This is because only large-scale slaughter can justify the dangers inherent in any use of military force, even when supposedly humanitarian reasons.

The Venezuelan Leader's Record

Maduro is certainly an oppressive ruler. He has crushed dissent to his autocratic rule, stolen presidential votes, reduced to poverty a resource-rich country with his mismanagement, while forced almost eight million citizens – over twenty percent of Venezuelans – to flee the country. But, military action for humanitarian purposes can never be justified only for removing a despot, absent genocidal violence.

Contrasting Approaches International Conflicts

Trump's fixation with Venezuela strikingly contrasts with his relative indifference toward much more lethal wars in Sudan's Darfur region as well as in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. In Darfur, Trump has taken no action to prevent the United Arab Emirates, from supplying weapons to the paramilitary RSF as they deprive and bomb innocent people. In eastern Congo, Trump oversaw a truce agreement, since mostly remained violated, and approved Rwandan abusive invasion, via its own troops and allied militias called M23 rebels, and enabling them to exploit the region's valuable minerals.

Peace Prize Winner versus International Norms

The unlawful nature of the US actions to Venezuela does not change because María Corina Machado, this year's Peace Prize winner, has encouraged the US to invade. Similar to Myanmar's Nobel laureate Suu Kyi, who defended the country's armed forces from atrocity accusations targeting Rohingya Muslims in her attempt to become president, Machado demonstrates the Nobel committee's tendency to confuse an ambition to wrest power from authoritarian regimes and dedication to legal principles.

In short, if the US to invade Venezuela, that would constitute unjustifiable aggression, much as Vladimir Putin did by invading Ukraine. The wish to free Venezuelans of Maduro's brutal, corrupt rule does not justify the use of military force against Venezuela.

Legal Rationales for Narcotics Vessel Attacks

Additionally, does the administration's aggressive behavior save the legality of their lethal operations on alleged narcotics-smuggling boats. US officials has declined to make public a confidential legal opinion which claims to authorize these attacks, however officials have referenced rationales which are comparable to the ones used for the warnings to invade Venezuela.

Under international law, police actions must avoid deadly violence unless as a last resort to address an imminent threat of lethal harm or serious bodily injury. In the past, most alleged narcotics vessels have been intercepted with their crews put on trial. But the president wants us to think that individuals on these vessels can now be summarily killed because they have become in an “armed conflict” against the US so can be killed like enemy fighters during hostilities.

But, there is no war involving narcotics organizations. These groups are operating an illicit business, a trade frequently advanced by violent means, to be sure, but that violence is not aimed at the United States. There is no situation reaching the level of military engagement with America required for laws of armed conflict to be applicable.

If Trump decided to attack Venezuela, the fighting between two countries would indeed represent