You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
More US interventions in Latin America can't be ruled out, says legal expert
2026-01-17
[SWISSINFO] The capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro by the United States signals a breaking point in the established world order. Does this mean that international law is now a thing of the past? A Geneva-based legal expert shares some insights.

“It is a flagrant breach of international law,” says Vincent Chetail, a professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute, when asked about the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by the US military on the night of January 2-3 in Caracas. “It is an act of armed aggression that violates the United Nations Charter and customary international law.”
Like Libya, only that broke the entire country with no effort to repair the damage. An now they have human trafficking and kidnapping for ransom, not to mention giving Turkey Libya's gold in exchange for ineffective mercenaries.
The UN Charter, the multilateral organisation’s founding document, prohibits the use of force except in the following three cases: if the state concerned requests it; if the UN Security Council authorises it; and in situations of self-defence. “Clearly, none of these apply here,” the international legal scholar says.

US President Donald Trump is presenting the capture of the Venezuelan leader as an act of defence against “narco-terrorism”. These narcotics, he adds, is claiming many victims in the United States, where the Venezuelan dictator, extradited to New York, now faces justice.

NO LEGAL ARGUMENT
“What is worrying is that not only is the Trump administration flouting international law, but it is not even attempting to give its actions a veneer of legality,” Chetail says. “The concept of narco-terrorism is an argument aimed at justifying the intervention domestically, but it does not exist in international law. It is pure invention.”
How did international law come to be, professor? By the evolution of customs and negotiated treaties, nicht wahr? Perhaps it is time for another evolutionary step to meet current realities.
This is not the first time that the United States has violated the UN Charter. The invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq two years later were also in breach of international law. Nor is it unprecedented for the country to capture a sitting head of state, as it did in 1989 with Manuel Noriega, then the ruler of Panama.
And the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — did that comply with international law as described?
“Until now, the United States developed a whole series of legal arguments, such as pre-emptive self-defence, which were certainly disputable, but at least reflected a desire to justify itself that is absent today,” Chetail adds.

TIMID REACTION IN EUROPE
In response to Maduro’s capture, most European countries have adopted a cautious stance towards the United States. In a statementExternal link supported by all member states except Hungary, the European Union on January 4 called for “respect for international law” but avoided condemning the US operation.

If, faced with a clear violation of international law, Europe is unable to voice clear condemnation, this shows the weakness of the European countries, which are struggling to accept the loss of their historic ally,” Chetail says. It also gives fodder to critics who, especially since the war in Gaza, have denounced the double standards applied by European capitals.

Switzerland, meanwhile, calledExternal link in a post on X for “de-escalation, restraint and respect for international law, including the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of respect for territorial integrity”. This reaction was deemed too timid by some on the left of the political spectrum, who would have preferred strong condemnationExternal link.

For Chetail, Switzerland, as host state of the UN in Europe and the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, has “a greater responsibility” to make its voice heard, but it “cannot, on its own, take responsibility for issues that even the states of Europe are unable to address”. This is all the more true in the context of an ongoing trade war.
Posted by:Skidmark

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Skidmark   2026-01-17 11:09  

00:00