🔗 Share this article

It comes as astonished that Donald Trump, who earlier endorsed Israel's operations in the Gaza Strip, now seems prepared to violate legal norms through his threatening approach regarding Venezuela alongside deadly attacks against alleged narcotics boats. Reflecting the fears expressed by protesters across America, the president operates like he were above legal accountability. One way to control such illegal conduct would be to expose its harmful consequences to the president's followers.

Military Deployments and Provocative Actions

In spite of his administration's pledge against initiating open-ended conflicts, Trump reportedly dispatched a warship to Caribbean waters while has been sending armed helicopters near Venezuela's shoreline. While the Trump administration rejects the claim its goal is regime change, some authorities privately concede that seems is their intention. Ousting Venezuela's autocratic leader, Nicolás Maduro, has long been a priority of Marco Rubio, America's chief foreign affairs officer.

Regardless of whether the president's threats represent hollow rhetoric and a prelude to an invasion, they are unlawful. Nor, does this saber-rattling create legal grounds for the administration's illegal killings – described by critics as murder – targeting alleged drug traffickers originating in Venezuela.

International Charter Breaches

The United Nations Charter, which binds all nations, there is a ban on “the threat or use of force” against another state except if approved by the UN's top body or undertaken for defensive purposes in response to “an armed attack”. Given the veto power within the council, there is no way that the council would approve the US to invade Venezuela. Nor, can the administration argue an invasion as defensive since Venezuela has not launched military strikes against the United States.

Humanitarian Intervention Doctrine

What about the idea of humanitarian intervention, the principle stating even without UN approval, armed intervention could be used to stop widespread crimes? I previously supported that approach, frequently called the Responsibility to Protect. Human Rights Watch, which the author formerly served, has advocated for humanitarian intervention previously. But, the abuse of the doctrine to justify overthrowing governments in Iraq and the Libyan conflict has in practice made the doctrine a dead letter. Those countries were in disarray, a situation frequently worse than authoritarian rule. Not many reference R2P anymore.

More importantly, even its peak popularity, such action could only be justified only as a last resort to stop ongoing or impending mass killing and similar systematic murder. The reason is that only widespread slaughter warrants the risks inherent in every armed engagement, even for supposedly humanitarian motives.

The Venezuelan Leader's Record

Maduro is indeed a terrible ruler. He has crushed dissent against his autocratic rule, stolen an election, impoverished an oil-rich nation with their incompetence, while driven almost eight million citizens – more than 20% of Venezuelans – to flee their homeland. But, humanitarian intervention cannot be justified only to overthrow a dictator, absent genocidal violence.

Contrasting Policies International Crises

Trump's fixation on Venezuela notably contrasts with their comparative indifference toward far more deadly armed conflicts in Darfur, Sudan as well as in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. In Darfur, Trump has taken nothing to prevent the United Arab Emirates, from arming the rebel Rapid Support Forces as they starve and bomb civilians. In eastern Congo, the administration oversaw a ceasefire deal, which has largely been ignored, and blessed Rwandan aggressive invasion, via its own troops and rebel proxy forces called the M23, and allows Rwanda to exploit the area's natural resources.

Peace Prize Winner and International Law

The illegality of the US actions against Venezuela does not change because María Corina Machado, this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner, has invited the US to intervene. Like the Burmese Nobel laureate Suu Kyi, and who supported the Myanmar military against genocide charges against the Rohingya in her attempt to gain power, Machado illustrates the Nobel committee's inclination to confuse a desire to seize control from authoritarian regimes with dedication to the rule of law.

To summarize, were Trump to invade Venezuela, it would be unjustifiable military aggression, similar to Vladimir Putin committed when he attacked Ukraine. The wish to free the Venezuelan people of Maduro's oppressive and corrupt governance cannot legitimize the use of military force to invade the country.

Legal Arguments for Narcotics Vessel Strikes

Additionally, does Trump's aggressive behavior save the lawfulness of their deadly attacks against suspected narcotics-smuggling vessels. The Trump administration has declined to release the internal legal memo which claims to authorize these strikes, but authorities have cited rationales that are comparable to the ones applied to the warnings to invade Venezuela.

According to international law, law enforcement operations are required to avoid deadly violence except when absolutely necessary to meet an imminent threat of death and grave physical harm. In the past, most suspected narcotics vessels have been intercepted with their crews prosecuted. But Trump wants the public to believe that individuals on these vessels can now be executed without trial because they are in an “armed conflict” against the United States so can be killed like enemy fighters in a war.

However, there is no war with narcotics organizations. These groups are operating an illicit business, a trade often furthered by violent means, admittedly, yet that violence is not directed against the United States. There is nothing reaching the threshold of military engagement with the United States necessary to apply the rules for warfare to take effect.

In the event Trump decided to attack Venezuela, the fighting between the nations would certainly represent