When law becomes a tool to legitimize power
Venezuela-US showdown tests limits of international law
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
Over the weekend, US special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a military operation and removed him from the country. US officials have accused Maduro of narco-terrorism, cocaine trafficking, organized corruption, and security-related crimes, for which, he is set to stand trial in a New York court.
Venezuela has rejected the accusations, describing the move as an “imperialist invasion” and interference in its internal affairs. From the standpoint of international law, Washington’s detention of the president of a sovereign state is highly controversial and has sparked international reactions. Iran has also condemned the arrest as a blatant violation of national sovereignty and the principles of the UN Charter, calling for Washington to be held accountable.
Meanwhile, although Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, has handling day-to-day affairs, the resulting relative power vacuum has left the fate of Caracas’ debts to Tehran, reportedly amounting to $2 billion, shrouded in uncertainty.
Mehrdad Mohammadi, an international law expert, told Iran Daily that the US action marked a return to the paradigm of offensive realism, in which “law” was used as an instrument to legitimize “power.”
IRAN DAILY: Does the US action against Venezuela have a legal basis in the international system, or is it grounded solely in domestic US law?
MOHAMMADI: From the perspective of classical international law and the UN Charter, the act of detaining or forcibly removing the president of a sovereign state lacks legal validity and is considered an explicit violation of the principle of non-intervention (Article 2(4) UN Charter) and the immunity of heads of state. The United States usually justifies these actions under its domestic law doctrines, such as the “International Emergency Economic Powers Act” (IEEPA) or federal court judicial rulings (based on criminal charges such as drug trafficking or terrorism); however, according to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, these domestic laws cannot serve as a justification for the failure to perform international obligations and the violation of the national sovereignty of other countries.
Can the US approach toward Venezuela be seen as prioritizing power politics and national interests over the principles of international law?
The recent approach clearly evokes a return to the paradigm of offensive realism, in which “law” becomes a tool for legitimizing “power.” When a superpower unilaterally acts to change a regime or detain the leader of another country, it has, in fact, sacrificed fundamental principles such as “sovereign equality” for its own national and security interests. This situation indicates the weakening of multilateralist institutions and a move toward a “law of the jungle” in which legal rules are respected only as long as they do not conflict with the spheres of influence and vital interests of the great powers.
Page 2