🔗 Share this article

One cannot be surprised to see Donald Trump, who previously supported Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, currently seems prepared to ignore international law through the administration's threatening stance regarding Venezuela and deadly attacks against suspected narcotics boats. Demonstrating the concerns expressed among protesters throughout the United States, the president operates as if he were above legal accountability. One method to restrain such illegal conduct would be to reveal the harmful consequences for the president's supporters.

Military Deployments along with Provocative Measures

Despite his administration's pledge against initiating open-ended conflicts, the president has sent a warship into the Caribbean Sea and has been sending military helicopters near Venezuela's shoreline. While the Trump administration rejects that its goal involves ousting the government, some officials confidentially concede that seems to be their aim. Ousting the nation's authoritarian president, Nicolás Maduro, has long been an objective of the US Secretary of State, America's chief foreign affairs officer.

Regardless of whether Trump's provocations represent hollow words and a prelude to military action, these actions remain unlawful. Nor, does this saber-rattling create legal grounds to excuse Trump's illegal killings – which some label murder – targeting suspected narcotics smugglers originating in Venezuela.

International Charter Breaches

The United Nations Charter, which binds every country, there is a prohibition on threatening or using military force against another state unless approved by the UN Security Council or undertaken for defensive purposes against “an armed attack”. Given the veto power on the Security Council, it is no way that the council to authorize the US to invade Venezuela. Additionally, could Trump argue such an action as defensive since Venezuela did not launched military strikes on the United States.

Responsibility to Protect Principle

What about the concept of military action for humanitarian purposes, the principle stating without requiring UN authorization, armed intervention could be employed to stop widespread crimes? I once subscribed to this doctrine, often called R2P. The rights organization, which the author formerly served, on several occasions sought humanitarian intervention in the past. But, the abuse of the doctrine to justify regime change in Iraq and Libya has effectively rendered R2P a dead letter. Those countries ended up in disarray, an outcome frequently worse compared to authoritarian rule. Not many invoke R2P today.

Crucially, during in its heyday, humanitarian intervention could only be defended only as an ultimate measure to prevent current or imminent genocide and comparable atrocities. This is because just widespread slaughter warrants the dangers inherent in any armed engagement, even for supposedly humanitarian reasons.

The Venezuelan Leader's Record

Maduro is indeed an oppressive ruler. He has suppressed dissent to his authoritarian regime, stolen an election, impoverished an oil-rich nation through his mismanagement, while forced nearly eight million citizens – more than 20% of Venezuelans – to leave their homeland. However, humanitarian intervention can never be justified only for removing a dictator, without mass slaughter.

Contrasting Policies International Crises

The president's fixation on Venezuela strikingly contrasts from his relative inaction regarding far more deadly wars in Sudan's Darfur region as well as in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. There, the US has taken nothing to stop a US ally, from arming the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces while they deprive and bomb innocent people. In the DRC, Trump oversaw a truce agreement, which has largely remained ignored, and approved Rwandan abusive incursion, via its own troops and allied militias called M23 rebels, while enabling them to profit from the area's valuable minerals.

Peace Prize Winner and Global Norms

The illegality of the US actions to Venezuela remains unchanged because the Venezuelan opposition leader, this year's Peace Prize winner, has virtually invited Trump to intervene. Like Myanmar's Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who defended the country's armed forces from genocide charges against Rohingya Muslims in her attempt to become president, the opposition figure demonstrates the Nobel committee's inclination to confuse a desire to wrest power from military rulers with dedication to legal principles.

In short, were Trump to invade Venezuela, it would be indefensible aggression, similar to Russia's president committed by invading Ukraine. The wish to free Venezuelans from Maduro's brutal, corrupt rule does not justify armed intervention against the country.

Juridical Arguments Regarding Narcotics Vessel Attacks

Nor, can Trump's aggressive conduct rescue the legality of their deadly attacks against alleged drug-running vessels. The Trump administration has declined to release a confidential legal opinion that purports to authorize these attacks, however officials have referenced arguments that are similar to the ones applied to the threats to invade Venezuela.

According to global legal standards, law enforcement operations are required to refrain from deadly violence except when absolutely necessary to meet an immediate danger of death or grave physical harm. Historically, most alleged drug-running boats were stopped with their crews prosecuted. But the president wants the public to believe that individuals on these vessels may now be summarily killed because they have become in an “armed conflict” with the United States and therefore may be targeted as enemy fighters in a war.

However, there is no war with narcotics organizations. These groups are operating an illicit business, one frequently advanced by violent means, admittedly, but that violence is not directed at the United States. There is no situation approaching the threshold of military engagement with America necessary to apply the rules for warfare to take effect.

In the event Trump were to invade Venezuela, the fighting between two countries would indeed constitute