Trampling the Charter

Taken together, the United States justifications-whether framed in the language of law enforcement, self-defence, humanitarian concern, or domestic constitutional authority-fail to withstand scrutiny under international law. What is at issue is not the moral depravity of the Maduro regime or the seriousness of transnational drug trafficking, but the preservation of a legal order built on sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and the prohibition on the unilateral use of force

- 

After months of military buildup, targeted strikes against alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean, and escalating diplomatic and economic pressure, U.S. forces on 3 January forcibly abducted Venezuela’ sitting President, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, and flew them to the United States to stand trial on charges of narco-terrorism, conspiracy to traffic drugs, and related offences.

This extraordinary operation ~ carried out by a state that once championed the post-World War II rule-based international order ~ has ignited fierce global debate. Washington insists that it merely executed a long-overdue law-enforcement action against an indicted criminal, yet to much of the world, including major powers and regional neighbours alike, this unilateral use of force against a sovereign state tramples the UN Charter and poses a profound challenge to the foundational principles of international law, setting a perilous precedent.

The United States has sought to justify the use of force against Venezuela as a legitimate “law enforcement” action to execute longstanding criminal indictments against President Maduro, whom it characterises as illegitimate, on charges of drug-trafficking and narco-terrorism. Some commentators have gone further, contending that alleged State-sponsored large-scale drug trafficking may itself constitute an “armed attack” capable of triggering the right of self-defence.

A separate narrative has also emerged that seeks to legitimise such action as a response to the Maduro government's appalling human rights record ~ including systematic repression, arbitrary detention, and crimes against humanity ~ recasting action asa form of pro-democratic humanitarian intervention. Inow examine these claims in turn and explain why none withstands scrutiny under international law.