By Kong Qingjiang
The US recently launched air strikes on Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, under the pretext of pursuing narco-terrorism charges, forcibly seized the country's incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and transferred them to the US for trial. This egregious act has triggered widespread condemnation across the international community. From the perspective of international law, this action by the US government constitutes a flagrant violation of the foundational principles of the international order established by the UN Charter, inflicting severe damage on global geopolitics and the international legal system.
The principle of the sovereign equality of states is a core pillar of contemporary international law, and the US operation fundamentally contravenes this principle. Article 2 of the UN Charter clearly stipulates that "the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members" and that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." Sovereign equality means that all nations, regardless of their size or strength, possess independent territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction. No country has the right to impose its domestic law above the sovereignty of another state. By charging a foreign head of state under its own domestic law and employing military force to carry out an arrest on foreign soil, the US essentially constitutes a flagrant violation of Venezuela's sovereignty.
The principle prohibiting the use of force is a fundamental line in international law. Paragraph 4, Article 2 of the UN Charter explicitly states that 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. Exceptions exist only in cases of self-defense or authorization by the UN Security Council. In this instance, the US neither obtained the authorization of the UN Security Council nor faced any premise of self-defense against an attack by Venezuela. Historically, when the US invaded Panama in 1989 to seize Manuel Noriegaunder the pretext of law enforcement support, the action was ultimately deemed by the UN General Assembly as a flagrant violation of international law. Today, the US is repeating its old tactics, but the scale of its military operations and the direct apprehension of a foreign head of state represent an even more severe assault on the international legal system than the Panama incident.
Putting aside the act that the US "law enforcement" operation to "capture" Maduro lacks substantive evidence, the very act of targeting Maduro for "law enforcement" violates the fundamental principles of international law. The diplomatic immunity of heads of state is a widely recognized principle in international law. Rooted in the international legal tradition that equals do not have authority over one another, a sitting head of state enjoys absolute criminal immunity and is not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts. This principle has gained universal acceptance within the international community. Although the US attempts to circumvent the rules of immunity by not recognizing Maduro's legitimacy as president, the immunity of a head of state is derived from their official position, not from recognition by other nations. Given that Maduro's presidency is affirmed by the legitimate domestic government of Venezuela, the US "capture" and trial of Maduro lack any basis in international law.
The US elevation of its domestic law above international law exposes the nature of its hegemonism. It should be noted that the US practice of using unilateral domestic law to "enforce" actions against the head of state of another country may set a precedent that other countries could replicate in the future, posing significant risks to the international order.
The US military operation against Venezuela not only constitutes a grave violation of Venezuela's national sovereignty but also deals a heavy blow to the post-war international legal system and world order. The repeated resort to force to carry out "unilateral law enforcement" cannot resolve the issue of "drug-related crimes"; it will only intensify international conflict.
(The author is the Dean of the School of Foreign-related Rule of Law at China University of Political Science and Law.)
Editor's note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.