Is there any legal justification for the US attack on Venezuela?
Briefly

Is there any legal justification for the US attack on Venezuela?
"Donald Trump said on Saturday morning that US troops had carried out a large-scale strike on Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple has now been indicted in New York on terrorism and drugs charges. Trump has accused Maduro of running a narco terrorist organisation. However, the legality of the operation has been called into question with even some of Trump's allies suggesting it violated international law."
"The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement known as article 2(4) rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty."
"Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter, he added. It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it's the worst crime of all."
US troops reportedly conducted a large-scale strike in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who face terrorism and drug indictments in New York. The operation prompted allegations that Maduro leads a narco-terrorist organisation. Legal scholars contend the action likely breached the UN Charter, specifically article 2(4), which bars the use of military force and requires respect for sovereignty. Leading international law experts described the operation as a crime of aggression and unlawful use of force. Observers noted the action would only be lawful with a UN Security Council resolution or clear self-defence evidence, which has not been shown.
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]