The Venezuela test for UN & international law

A long-running discussion at the core of international law has been rekindled by the recent US military strike within Venezuelan territory that resulted in President Nicolas Maduro’s arrest and transfer to New York:

- Jyoti Singh

How strong is the prohibition on the use of force in a time of unilateral action?Although Washington has attempted to portray the operation as a law enforcement action against a leader who has been charged with a crime, the incident highlights more serious issues regarding jurisdiction, sovereignty, and the progressive change in the laws controlling force between States. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has expressed his deep concern that the action of the US sets a dangerous precedent and may flout the UN Charter.

At the centre of this debate lies Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits States from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State. This clause has long been considered a pillar of the international legal system that emerged after 1945. International lawyers have long cautioned that the ban on the use of force is most vulnerable to gradual erosion through practice and interpretation rather than outright rejection.

States rarely reject the ban on the use of force outright. Rather, they use expansive interpretations of self-defence to defend acts that would typically be forbidden by international law. As time goes on, this weakens the rule. This trend is well reflected in the recent strike on Venezuela.