US' capture of Maduro likely broke international law according to experts

quote:

---

The Trump administration’s unilateral action to extract Maduro from his country — an operation dubbed "Operation Absolute Resolve" — reportedly involved the use of 150 aircraft to strike locations in northern Venezuela, including the capital Caracas. Some reports suggest 40 people have died as a result of the US strikes.

The operation has been both welcomed and condemned by observers.

While many foreign policy and international law experts have said the removal of Maduro — widely seen as an illegitimate leader following a 2024 election that independent observers said he lost, and a record of persecuting his opponents — is good, there remain doubts over the legality of the US' actions.

---

quote:

---

The US led the establishment of the United Nations and, in 1945, signed its foundational document, the UN Charter, which underpins many principles of international law, including territorial integrity.

Scholars have pointed to Article 2(4) of that charter to suggest the US’ actions violated international law. That article forbids the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence" of another country.

"This was a use of force," said Marko Milanovic, Director of Global Law at the University of Reading in the UK.

"If you send 150 airplanes into another state, if you start bombing its air defenses, if you kidnap its president, if you kill dozens of people, that is a use of force in the sense of Article 2, paragraph 4."

There are exceptions, the most notable being authorization by the UN Security Council can to proceed with military action against another country. However, this approval wasn’t sought prior to Maduro’s seizure.

Another is self-defence, though given the US' outsized military strength relative to Venezuela, it is again unclear how this argument would hold up.

---

quote:

---

Even labelling fentanyl as a WMD, branding Maduro a narco-terrorist and charging him with conspiracy against the US is unlikely to be accepted by any international standard as a rationale for self-defence.

“Self-defense requires the existence of an armed attack," Milanovic told DW. "Simply allowing the exports of drugs from one country to another is not an armed attack and has never been treated as an armed attack."

---