Was the US invasion of Venezuela and the capture of Maduro legal? , American news

It appears that Donald Trump’s administration went rogue with its attack in Venezuela, which led to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro.

More than 150 aircraft were involved in a daring operation in which echoes of the explosions were seen in Caracas, and Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were detained before being flown to New York, where they face narco-terrorism charges.

United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, along with member state governments including France, Spain, Canada and Germany, has questioned whether the US military operation violated international law.

Follow live: Trump issues new warning to Venezuela

Sir Keir Starmer and his government have so far refused to say, ‘Do they believe Mr Trump went against the law?’

Sky News spoke to legal experts about whether the attack was legal and what implications it could have around the world.

Experts say America has broken international law

Mariano de Alba, A Venezuelan A lawyer specialising in international law for the International Institute for Strategic Studies told Sky News that there was “no legal justification” for the US attack.

Legal commentator Joshua Rosenberg agreed, saying, “International law prohibits invading another country and capturing its president.”

Both experts cited an article of the UN Charter, which is an agreement between all UN member states, that reads: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

Venezuela’s army has some ‘very impressive kit’

Both the US and Venezuela are members of the United Nations.

Mr Rosenberg said, “The United Nations can authorise the use of force, but it has not done so here. There is a right to self-defence, but it only applies if there is an armed attack against a member state. Now, whatever argument President Trump may make, I think it will be substantial.”

Mr de Alba said the attack “sets a worrying precedent for the region, because it simply means that the current US administration is willing to go against the basic rules of international law to try to impose its decisions, its will.”

He added, “I think it also sets a worrying precedent for the rest of the world because it opens the door to possible justification for action by other world powers like China and Russia… [to do] the same things.”

Mr Rosenberg agreed, saying, “Of course, there is concern that if President Trump can do it, what can President Putin do? [or] “What if President Xi wanted to attack Russia or China or a neighbouring country like Ukraine or Taiwan?”

How is America justifying the attack?

The Trump administration has long accused Venezuela of failing to cooperate with domestic criminal groups in anti-drug efforts.

Maduro was charged with narco-terrorism in the United States in 2020. Specifically, he has been charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States.

America is trying to rule Venezuela with ‘remote control’

It is also believed that he illegally declared himself the winner in the last general election and launched a campaign of fear and repression; for years, thousands of opposition supporters and political enemies were arrested and imprisoned.

Since coming to power in 2013, Maduro’s regime has also been linked with terrorist organisations internationally.

Mr Rosenberg said, “You could well say that Trump … is protecting the US from cocaine trafficking, protecting the rest of the world from Venezuela’s ties to terrorist groups in other parts of the world, particularly Iran.

“So there is every justification from a political standpoint for what President Trump is trying to do.”

Read more:
Why can’t Trump stay in Venezuela?
Why is Trump interested in Venezuelan oil?
Analysis: Maduro’s rule was disastrous

But both he and Mr de Alba agree that these objectives still do not justify a U.S. Under international law, a U.S. military operation is not justified.

Mr Rosenberg said that in these circumstances, you would typically see a leader extradited rather than captured through military intervention.

Could this lead to similar US attacks in other countries?

Mr Rosenberg suggested that Mr Trump would pay little attention to what U.N. leaders say, even if they condemn his military intervention in Venezuela, and that he is pushing for a “new world order”.

And, after promising to “steer” Venezuela until a “safe, just and prudent transition” of power, Mr Trump appears to be threatening other countries with similar behaviour to achieve his foreign policy goals, like Colombia and Cuba.

But Mr de Alba said he believed the U.S. government would have even fewer grounds for such action in other countries.

“I think in the case of Colombia and Mexico, the U.S. The U.S. administration will need to exercise more caution in Colombia and Mexico because, to act similarly, they would require a president in those countries who is not duly elected. That’s not the case with Mexico and Colombia.

“And they will also need indictments by American courts against the people they are going to go after.”

He suggested that the Trump administration was more interested in “showing a lot of force” through the Venezuela attack to “coerce” governments in Latin America, rather than attacking them next.