🔗 Share this article

We should not be surprised that Donald Trump, who earlier endorsed Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, currently seems prepared to disregard legal norms with the administration's bellicose approach toward Venezuela alongside deadly attacks on alleged drug-running boats. Demonstrating the fears voiced among protesters throughout America, Trump operates like he is immune from legal accountability. One method to restrain such illegal conduct would be to reveal its harmful implications to his followers.

Armed Movements along with Provocative Actions

Despite his administration's pledge to avoid starting open-ended wars, the president reportedly sent an aircraft carrier to the Caribbean Sea while is sending military helicopters near the Venezuelan coast. Although US officials denies the claim their objective involves regime change, several officials privately concede that seems to be the aim. Removing the nation's autocratic president, Nicolás Maduro, has long been an objective for the US Secretary of State, America's top diplomat.

Regardless of whether Trump's provocations represent empty words or a prelude for an invasion, they are unlawful. Furthermore, does this saber-rattling create legal grounds to excuse Trump's unlawful attacks – which some label murder – of alleged narcotics smugglers originating in Venezuela.

United Nations Charter Violations

The UN Charter, which binds all nations, there is a prohibition on threatening or using military force against other nations except if approved by the UN's top body or undertaken in “self-defense” in response to “an armed attack”. Considering the veto within the Security Council, there is impossible for the council to approve the US to invade Venezuela. Additionally, can the administration argue such an action to be defensive because Venezuela did not initiated an “armed attack” against the United States.

Responsibility to Protect Doctrine

But then there is the concept of humanitarian intervention, the principle that without requiring UN approval, armed intervention might be used to stop mass atrocities? I previously supported this doctrine, often called R2P. Human Rights Watch, where the author formerly served, has sought such measures in the past. However, the abuse of the doctrine to justify regime change during the Iraq war and Libya has in practice made R2P a dead letter. Those countries ended up left in chaos, a situation frequently worse than authoritarian rule. Few invoke R2P today.

More importantly, even in its heyday, such action could be justified only as an ultimate measure to stop current or impending genocide and similar atrocities. The reason is that only widespread slaughter can justify the dangers involved in any use of military force, including for assertedly humanitarian reasons.

Maduro's Record

The Venezuelan president is certainly an oppressive leader. His government has suppressed dissent against his autocratic rule, stolen presidential votes, impoverished an oil-rich nation through their mismanagement, and forced almost 8 million citizens – over twenty percent of the population – to flee their homeland. But, military action for humanitarian purposes can never be legitimized only to overthrow a despot, absent genocidal violence.

Contrasting Approaches to Global Crises

Trump's preoccupation with Venezuela strikingly differs with his relative indifference regarding far more deadly armed conflicts in Sudan's Darfur region as well as in eastern the DRC. In Darfur, the US has taken no action to stop the United Arab Emirates, from arming the paramilitary RSF while they deprive and bomb innocent people. In the DRC, Trump oversaw a ceasefire deal, since mostly been ignored, and blessed Rwanda's aggressive invasion, through its own troops and rebel proxy forces known as M23 rebels, while allows them to exploit the area's valuable minerals.

Peace Prize Laureate versus International Law

The illegality of Trump's actions to Venezuela does not change despite the fact that the Venezuelan opposition leader, this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has encouraged the US to intervene. Like the Burmese Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who supported the country's armed forces against genocide charges against Rohingya Muslims in her quest to gain power, Machado demonstrates the prize committee's tendency to mix up an ambition to wrest power from authoritarian regimes with a commitment to legal principles.

In short, if the US to invade Venezuela, it would be indefensible aggression, much as Vladimir Putin committed by invading Ukraine. The desire to rid Venezuelans of Maduro's oppressive and corrupt governance cannot legitimize the use of military force to invade the country.

Legal Rationales Regarding Narcotics Vessel Strikes

Nor, does the administration's aggressive conduct rescue the lawfulness of their deadly operations against suspected narcotics-smuggling boats. US officials have declined to make public a confidential legal opinion that purports to authorize these attacks, but authorities have referenced rationales that are similar to those used for the warnings of invading Venezuela.

According to international law, police actions must refrain from deadly violence unless when absolutely necessary to address an immediate danger of lethal harm and serious bodily injury. Historically, the majority of suspected narcotics vessels have been stopped with their crews prosecuted. Yet Trump would have the public to think that the people in the boats may now be executed without trial because they have become in an “armed conflict” against the United States and therefore can be killed like any combatant in a war.

But, exists no war involving narcotics organizations. They are operating an illicit business, one frequently advanced through brutality, to be sure, yet such force is not aimed against the United States. There is no situation reaching the level of armed hostilities with America required to apply the rules for warfare to be applicable.

In the event Trump decided to attack Venezuela, the hostilities between two countries would indeed represent