A New International Law Can Rise From the Ashes

"In the early hours of January 3, the United States armed forces executed an astounding operation. American air, land, and sea units destroyed Venezuela's air defenses, sent in Special Forces that took out President Nicolás Maduro's security team, and brought the dictator and his wife back to the U.S. for trial. But rather than applaud the removal of an illegitimate dictator and his wife, many foreign leaders quickly condemned the snatch-and-grab."

"If critics correctly argue that the attack on Venezuela violates international law, they have unintentionally revealed that international law-not the United States-must change. Removing Maduro was just: The dictatorship has killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of Venezuelans, destroyed the country's economy, and denied the electoral wishes of the Venezuelan people for new leadership. But international law did nothing about this crisis, and countenanced no solution."

"Opponents of the American intervention in Venezuela have a good case that Trump acted outside of legal norms. The U.S., along with virtually every nation in the world, has ratified the United Nations Charter, which forbids "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." The charter provides exceptions only when nations act under "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense" or participate in actions approved by the UN Security Council."

U.S. forces disabled Venezuela's air defenses, neutralized President Nicolás Maduro's security team, and transported Maduro and his wife to the United States for trial. Many foreign leaders condemned the operation as a violation of international law. Supporters contend the removal was justified because the dictatorship caused mass deaths, economic collapse, and denied Venezuelans electoral change. The United Nations Charter forbids force against state sovereignty except for self-defense or Security Council authorization, and nearly every nation has ratified those rules. Proponents argue that international law currently limits Western preemptive options while constraining rivals less, and call for U.S.-led reform to permit stability-enhancing interventions amid great-power competition.

Read at The Atlantic