🔗 Share this article

It comes as astonished that Donald Trump, who previously endorsed Israel's operations in the Gaza Strip, now seems willing to ignore legal norms through his bellicose approach regarding Venezuela alongside lethal strikes against suspected drug-running vessels. Reflecting those concerns voiced by protesters across the United States, the president operates like he were immune from the law. The only method to control such illegal conduct would be to reveal the harmful implications to the president's supporters.

Military Movements and Aggressive Actions

Despite his administration's pledge against initiating protracted wars, the president reportedly sent an aircraft carrier to the Caribbean Sea and is sending armed helicopters near Venezuela's shoreline. Although US officials denies the claim their objective involves ousting the government, some officials privately admit that seems is their aim. Ousting Venezuela's authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro, has long been a priority of Marco Rubio, America's top diplomat.

Regardless of whether the president's threats represent empty rhetoric and preparation to an invasion, these actions remain illegal. Nor, does such aggressive posturing provide justification for the administration's illegal attacks – which some label extrajudicial killing – targeting alleged narcotics smugglers originating in Venezuela.

United Nations Law Breaches

The United Nations Charter, a document that applies to every country, it contains a ban on “the threat or use of force” against other nations except if approved by the UN's top body or used in “self-defense” against military aggression. Given the veto on the council, it is no way for it would authorize Trump to invade Venezuela. Additionally, can Trump argue such an action to be “self-defense” since Venezuela has not initiated military strikes on US territory.

Responsibility to Protect Doctrine

What about the idea of military action for humanitarian purposes, the notion stating even without UN approval, armed intervention could be used to halt mass atrocities? The author previously subscribed to that approach, frequently called R2P. Human Rights Watch, where the author formerly served, on several occasions sought such measures previously. But, the misuse of this principle to justify regime change in Iraq and the Libyan conflict has in practice rendered R2P irrelevant. Those nations ended up left in chaos, a situation frequently worse compared to authoritarian rule. Few reference R2P anymore.

Crucially, during its peak popularity, humanitarian intervention could only be defended only as a last resort to prevent ongoing or impending genocide or comparable atrocities. The reason is that only widespread killing can justify the dangers involved in any armed engagement, including for assertedly humanitarian motives.

Maduro's Record

Maduro is certainly a terrible leader. His government has suppressed dissent against his authoritarian regime, rigged presidential votes, impoverished an oil-rich nation through his incompetence, and forced nearly 8 million people – over twenty percent of the population – to leave the country. However, military action for humanitarian purposes can never be legitimized only for removing a despot, without genocidal violence.

Contrasting Approaches to Global Conflicts

Trump's fixation on Venezuela notably contrasts from their relative inaction regarding far more deadly wars in Sudan's Darfur region as well as in the east of the DRC. There, the US has taken no action to prevent the United Arab Emirates, from arming the paramilitary RSF as they starve and bomb innocent people. In the DRC, Trump oversaw a truce agreement, which has largely remained ignored, that approved Rwandan abusive incursion, through its own troops and rebel proxy forces known as M23 rebels, and enabling Rwanda to exploit the area's natural resources.

Peace Prize Laureate and Global Law

The unlawful nature of the US actions against Venezuela does not change because the Venezuelan opposition leader, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, has virtually encouraged Trump to invade. Like Myanmar's prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, and who defended the country's armed forces from atrocity accusations targeting the Rohingya in her quest to gain power, Machado illustrates the prize committee's tendency to mix up a desire to wrest power from military rulers and dedication to legal principles.

In short, if the US to invade Venezuela, it would be indefensible aggression, similar to Vladimir Putin committed when he attacked Ukraine. The wish to free the Venezuelan people from Maduro's brutal, corrupt rule does not justify the use of military force against the country.

Juridical Rationales Regarding Drug Boat Attacks

Nor, does the administration's bellicose behavior rescue the legality of their lethal operations on suspected narcotics-smuggling vessels. US officials has refused to make public the internal legal memo which claims to justify these strikes, but authorities have cited arguments which are similar to those applied to the warnings to invade Venezuela.

Under global legal standards, law enforcement operations must avoid the use of lethal force unless when absolutely necessary to address an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. In the past, most suspected drug-running boats were stopped and their occupants put on trial. Yet the president would have the public to think that individuals on these vessels can now be executed without trial on the grounds that they are participants in a war against the United States and therefore may be targeted as any combatant in a war.

However, exists no war with the drug cartels. These groups are operating an illicit business, one frequently furthered through brutality, to be sure, yet that violence is not directed at US interests. There is no situation approaching the level of armed hostilities with the United States necessary to apply laws of armed conflict to be applicable.

In the event the US decided to attack Venezuela, the fighting between the nations would indeed constitute