🔗 Share this article

We should not be astonished to see Donald Trump, after earlier supported Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip, currently appears willing to violate international law through his threatening approach regarding Venezuela alongside deadly attacks on suspected narcotics vessels. Reflecting the fears expressed among demonstrators throughout the United States, the president operates like he is immune from legal accountability. One way to control this kind of illegal conduct is to reveal the harmful consequences to his followers.

Armed Movements along with Provocative Actions

In spite of his administration's pledge against initiating open-ended conflicts, the president reportedly sent an aircraft carrier to the Caribbean Sea while is sending military aircraft near Venezuela's shoreline. While the Trump administration rejects the claim its objective is ousting the government, several officials privately admit this seems to be their intention. Removing Venezuela's authoritarian leader, the Venezuelan head of state, has for years been an objective of Marco Rubio, the chief foreign affairs officer.

Whether the president's threats represent hollow rhetoric or a prelude for military action, they are unlawful. Furthermore, does this saber-rattling provide justification for the administration's unlawful attacks – described by critics as murder – targeting alleged drug traffickers from Venezuela.

International Charter Violations

According to the UN Charter, a document that applies to all nations, it contains a ban on threatening or using military force against other nations except if authorized by the UN's top body or used in “self-defense” against “an armed attack”. Considering the veto power within the Security Council, it is impossible for the council would authorize the US to attack Venezuela. Nor, can the administration argue such an action to be defensive because Venezuela has not launched an “armed attack” against US territory.

Humanitarian Intervention Principle

What about the concept of humanitarian intervention, the principle that without requiring Security Council authorization, military force could be used to halt mass atrocities? The author previously supported that approach, often known as the Responsibility to Protect. The rights organization, which I long led, has sought such measures in the past. However, the abuse of this principle to justify overthrowing governments in Iraq and the Libyan conflict has in practice rendered the doctrine a dead letter. Both nations were in disarray, an outcome frequently more severe compared to authoritarian rule. Not many reference R2P anymore.

More importantly, during in its heyday, humanitarian intervention could be justified as a last resort to stop current or imminent mass killing or similar systematic murder. The reason is that just large-scale killing can justify the dangers involved in any armed engagement, including for assertedly humanitarian reasons.

Maduro's Record

Maduro is certainly an oppressive leader. His government has suppressed dissent against his authoritarian regime, stolen presidential votes, reduced to poverty a resource-rich country through their mismanagement, and driven nearly eight million people – more than 20% of Venezuelans – to leave the country. However, humanitarian intervention can never be justified merely to overthrow a dictator, without genocidal violence.

Divergent Policies International Crises

Trump's fixation on Venezuela strikingly contrasts from his relative indifference regarding far more deadly wars in Darfur, Sudan as well as in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. There, the US has done nothing to stop a US ally, from arming the rebel Rapid Support Forces as they starve and bomb innocent people. In the DRC, the administration oversaw a ceasefire deal, which has mostly been ignored, that blessed Rwanda's aggressive invasion, through Rwandan forces and rebel proxy forces known as M23 rebels, and allows Rwanda to exploit the area's natural resources.

Nobel Prize Laureate and Global Norms

The unlawful nature of the US threats against Venezuela does not change despite the fact that María Corina Machado, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has invited Trump to invade. Similar to Myanmar's Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who supported the Myanmar military against genocide charges against the Rohingya in her attempt to gain power, Machado demonstrates the prize committee's tendency to confuse a desire to seize control from authoritarian regimes with dedication to the rule of law.

In short, were Trump were to attack Venezuela, that would constitute unjustifiable military aggression, similar to Russia's president did by invading Ukraine. The desire to free the Venezuelan people from their leader's brutal, corrupt rule cannot legitimize armed intervention against the country.

Juridical Arguments Regarding Drug Boat Attacks

Nor, does Trump's aggressive behavior save the lawfulness of his deadly attacks against alleged narcotics-smuggling vessels. US officials have refused to make public the internal legal memo that purports to authorize these strikes, but officials have referenced arguments which are similar to those used for the warnings of invading Venezuela.

According to global legal standards, police actions must refrain from deadly violence except as a last resort to address an imminent threat of lethal harm and grave physical harm. Historically, the majority of alleged narcotics vessels have been stopped with their crews put on trial. Yet Trump wants the public to believe that individuals in the boats may now be summarily killed because they are in an “armed conflict” with the US so may be targeted as enemy fighters during hostilities.

However, there is no war involving the drug cartels. They are running illegal enterprises, a trade often advanced by violent means, admittedly, yet that violence is not directed against the United States. There is nothing approaching the threshold of armed hostilities with America necessary to apply laws of armed conflict to take effect.

If the US were to invade Venezuela, the hostilities between two countries would indeed constitute