After a large-scale strike in Venezuela, US troops captured the President along with his wife, accusing them of running a 'narco terrorist organisation'. A longstanding, strained relationship between the two states cannot serve as justification for unilateral military action. This conduct of abduction of a foreign leader was unprecedented and wholly unprovoked (unlike the Panama invasion, which was in response to attacks on American military personnel in Panama) and amounts to a clear violation of International Law and State Sovereignty.
International Law:
The incident not only violates international law but also goes against the very spirit of the UN Charter. Article 1(1) of the UN Charter stipulates that the maintenance of international peace and security is the primary purpose of the UN. Article 2(1) recognizes the principle of the sovereign equality of all its member States. Article 2(4) prohibits States from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
Although the US claimed that the operation was a targeted law enforcement mission, Trump's announcement to run the country raised an important question about the US's claims of alleged drug trafficking issues. Though the strike exceeded the limits of law enforcement action, even if it had remained within the scope of law enforcement action, US operations on Venezuelan soil without its permission would still violate international law.
According to the legal experts, even though drug trafficking is considered a criminal activity, it does not meet the international standard of armed conflict that may justify a military intervention.
Removal of Maduro:
Article 2(7) of the UN Charter explicitly restricts the UN from intervening in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states. The illegitimacy or Authoritarianism of a head of State doesn't give another State the right to intervene by Use of Force.
As Professor Michael Schmitt argues, engaging in investigations, arrest, or seizure of criminal property on the territory of a foreign state without its permission amounts to a violation of the state's sovereignty.
Exceptions under IL:
IL under the UN Charter prohibits the use of force in international relations, except in case that falls within one of the two narrow exceptions: self-defence and authorization of the UN Security Council. Additionally, humanitarian intervention, though controversial and lacking a broad consensus, is often cited as a third exception. The attack could be considered lawful only if the US was acting within the scope of any exceptions.
- Self-Defence (Article 51)
To use the self-defence exception, there must be a legitimate belief that one State is about to attack by force another State. Since Venezuela neither attacked the US nor was about to do so, the US military response is not justified.
Though drug trafficking is killing many people and indeed a serious concern, there is neither any evidence to prove that drug traffickers were threatening the US sovereignty nor any evidence to show that drug traffickers were from Venezuela. Therefore, the self-defence clause cannot be invoked in this case.
- Authorization of the UN Security Council (Chapter VII)
The UN has not approved any such action. So, there was no Security Council Mandate.
- Humanitarian Intervention
This refers to a situation in which one State uses military force inside another State without the consent of the host State or the UN, claiming the goal is to protect civilians from large-scale atrocities committed by the host State itself.
The US may attempt to justify intervention for the purpose of protecting Venezuelans from Maduro's government, which is accused of suppressing political opposition and committing serious human rights violations.
Although humanitarian intervention is gaining acceptance under international law based on 'state practice', i.e., what countries do, even if it's not formally enshrined in treaties. But many countries and legal experts don't recognize the unilateral humanitarian intervention (intervention without UN approval) as lawful under international law. This inconsistency in State practice prevents it from crystallising into a binding rule of international law.
Therefore, the strikes on Venezuela don't fall within the purview of this exception.
Furthermore, Trump also blamed Venezuela for stealing US oil interests. As rightly argued by Dr Yusra Suedi that strategic or economic motives never justify the use of force. Violating international law to uphold it might set a precedent that is contrary to its principles.
Violation of US Law:
This intervention also violated the US law, as the operation was conducted without congressional approval as mandated by the US Constitution. Whatever the justification for such a procedural deviation, the President of the US does not have the right to unilaterally take the country to war.
In the present scenario, the norms of international law have been consistently violated. The international community of states shall condemn these fundamental breaches at the UN through UNGA resolutions. We need to restore the influence of international institutions to establish a rule-based order over the 'might-is-right' global order.
As said by the President of the UN General Assembly, the guiding framework in the days ahead must be the UN Charter, which is not an optional document. A peaceful, safe and just world for everyone is only possible if the rule of law prevails instead of might makes right.
The Author Is A Law Faculty At University of Delhi
Views Are Personal