Power grabs law enforcement authority in shocking incident

US Intervention in Venezuela Raises Questions About International Law

A professor of law at Howard University School of Law has stated that the US attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its leader have no basis in law. The professor claims that the intervention is not an extension of law enforcement beyond borders, but rather international vandalism.

The professor argues that power has displaced law, preference has replaced principle, and force has been presented as virtue. They contend that this approach does not uphold the international order, but rather advertises contempt for it. According to the professor, the forcible seizure of a sitting head of state by the US is not justified under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter or authorized by the UN Security Council.

The professor also notes that international law is not a roving moral warrant for great powers to perform regime change by abduction. They claim that alleged human rights violations or trafficking in narcotics do not justify the removal of a foreign head of state, as there is no such rule in treaty law, custom law, or serious jurisprudence.

The professor points out that if the US were serious about upholding this principle, it would need to take action closer to home. They also note that the logic applied to Venezuela does not apply to other countries, such as Israel, where similar allegations of human rights abuses and genocide have been made.

Historically, regime change has been a common practice in American foreign policy, with examples including Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973, and Iraq in 2003. The professor argues that the kidnapping of a sitting president marks a new low in this practice.

The US has repeatedly violated its obligations under the UN Charter and the UN Headquarters Agreement, including denying entry to officials it disfavors. The professor claims that the UN system is failing to constrain serious international law violations due to paralysis from vetoes, bullying by its host, and ignoring by those capable of violating its charter.

The professor concludes that the UN should be permanently relocated away from a host state that treats treaty obligations as inconveniences, and that the international community must begin a serious conversation about an alternative global structure whose authority is not hostage to one capital, one veto, or one currency.

Source: Al Jazeera