🔗 Share this article

We should not be shocked to see Donald Trump, after previously endorsed Israel's actions in Gaza, currently appears prepared to disregard international law with his bellicose approach toward Venezuela and lethal strikes on alleged narcotics vessels. Demonstrating the fears expressed by demonstrators throughout America, Trump acts like he is immune from legal accountability. One way to restrain this kind of illegal conduct would be to expose its dangerous implications for the president's supporters.

Armed Movements and Aggressive Measures

Despite the White House's commitment to avoid starting open-ended conflicts, Trump has dispatched a warship into Caribbean waters while is sending armed helicopters close to Venezuela's shoreline. While the Trump administration rejects the claim its objective involves ousting the government, several authorities confidentially admit that seems is their aim. Removing Venezuela's authoritarian leader, the Venezuelan head of state, has long been an objective of the US Secretary of State, America's top diplomat.

Whether the president's provocations are hollow words and a prelude to an invasion, they are illegal. Nor, can this saber-rattling create legal grounds for Trump's unlawful attacks – described by critics as extrajudicial killing – targeting alleged narcotics smugglers from Venezuela.

United Nations Charter Violations

The UN Charter, which applies to every country, it contains a prohibition against threatening or using military force against other nations except if approved by the UN Security Council and used in “self-defense” in response to “an armed attack”. Considering the veto within the council, there is no way that the council to approve the US to attack Venezuela. Nor, could the administration interpret an invasion as defensive since Venezuela has not initiated an “armed attack” against US territory.

Responsibility to Protect Doctrine

What about the idea of humanitarian intervention, the notion stating without requiring Security Council approval, military force might be employed to halt mass atrocities? The author previously subscribed to that approach, frequently called the Responsibility to Protect. The rights organization, where I long led, on several occasions sought such measures in the past. But, the misuse of this principle as a pretext for regime change in Iraq and the Libyan conflict has effectively rendered R2P irrelevant. Both nations were in disarray, an outcome often worse than tyranny. Few reference this principle anymore.

Crucially, even its peak popularity, such action could be defended as an ultimate measure to stop current or impending mass killing and comparable systematic murder. This is because only widespread slaughter warrants the dangers involved in every armed engagement, including when supposedly humanitarian motives.

Maduro's Record

Maduro is certainly an oppressive leader. His government has suppressed dissent to his autocratic rule, rigged an election, reduced to poverty a resource-rich country with his incompetence, while driven almost 8 million people – over twenty percent of Venezuelans – to leave their homeland. But, humanitarian intervention can never be legitimized merely to overthrow a dictator, without mass slaughter.

Contrasting Approaches International Crises

Trump's fixation with Venezuela notably differs from their comparative indifference regarding far more deadly armed conflicts in Darfur, Sudan as well as in the east of Democratic Republic of Congo. In Darfur, Trump has taken nothing to prevent a US ally, from supplying weapons to the rebel Rapid Support Forces as they deprive and attack civilians. In the DRC, Trump brokered a ceasefire deal, which has largely been violated, and approved Rwanda's aggressive incursion, via Rwandan forces and rebel proxy forces called M23 rebels, while enabling Rwanda to profit from the area's valuable minerals.

Peace Prize Laureate and Global Norms

The illegality of the US threats against Venezuela does not change because María Corina Machado, the Peace Prize laureate, has virtually encouraged Trump to invade. Similar to the Burmese Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, and who defended the Myanmar military against genocide charges against Rohingya Muslims in her quest to become president, Machado illustrates the prize committee's tendency to mix up a desire to seize control from military rulers and dedication to legal principles.

In short, were Trump to invade Venezuela, that would constitute unjustifiable aggression, similar to Vladimir Putin did by invading Ukraine. The wish to rid the Venezuelan people of their leader's oppressive and corrupt governance cannot legitimize armed intervention against the country.

Juridical Arguments Regarding Drug Boat Attacks

Nor, can the administration's aggressive conduct save the legality of their lethal operations against suspected drug-running boats. US officials have declined to release the internal legal memo that purports to authorize these attacks, however authorities have cited rationales that are similar to the ones applied to the warnings to invade Venezuela.

Under global legal standards, law enforcement operations must refrain from the use of lethal force except as a last resort to address an imminent threat of lethal harm or grave physical harm. Historically, the majority of suspected narcotics vessels have been intercepted with their crews prosecuted. Yet Trump would have the public to believe that individuals on these vessels can now be executed without trial because they are participants in a war with the US so can be killed as any combatant during hostilities.

However, exists no armed conflict with narcotics organizations. These groups are operating an illicit business, a trade frequently furthered by violent means, admittedly, but such force is not aimed at the United States. There is nothing reaching the threshold of military engagement with the United States required to apply laws of armed conflict to take effect.

In the event the US were to invade Venezuela, the fighting between two countries would indeed represent