“It’s a violation of international law!” Like the chorus of a catchy tune, this is the refrain, the buzz phrase, the catch phrase spoken by virtually all and sundry during and in the wake of the US actions in Venezuela. Yet when confronted with the question: “What international law are you talking about? no one can answer the question.
So, when critics of the Trump’s military action in Venezuela cry “violation of international law” what do they mean? Which international law has the US violated?
When antisemites raise this same refrain against Israel’s action in Gaza, what do they mean? More precisely, when they accuse Israel of genocide what international law on genocide is Israel violating?
Conceptual Issues
As in any serious debate, we should not make assumptions about what we are talking about but define the parameters of the subject. The basic way in which we do that is by offering a definition of the subject. Here is how the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School defines international law:
International law is a set of rules and principles governing the relations and conduct of sovereign states with each other, as well as with international organizations and individuals. R-1
Needless to say, the subject of international law covers a wide range of issues. Indeed, one might argue that the variety of international law is as diverse as the number of dimensions on which sovereign states relate to each other. The same source cited above goes on to support this proposition:
Issues that fall under international law include trade, human rights, diplomacy, environmental preservation, and war crimes. Different international bodies, such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization, are responsible for overseeing these issues. Generally speaking, the goal of international law is to promote peace and order between nations. R-2
Verdict
Those who are accustomed to reading comprehensive treatments of a subject in single textbook: for example, organic chemistry, accounting or even contract law, will be shocked at the following reality:
There is no such thing as a coherent set of laws coded in any single place written or electronic, called “international law”!
Read that again until it sinks in. If you care to do the research, you will find that international law consists of a hodge podge of several so-called “sources” of law. These sources include the following:
1.Treaties between and among sovereign countries
2.Customary law (meaning what countries treat as norms)
3.General principles of law used by most nations.
4.Precedents that is judicial decisions.
That list alone substantiates the broad proposition advanced earlier that there is no body of regulations that every country in the world has agreed to. It does not exist!
Furthermore, when it is disclosed that one of the principles of international law mentioned at #3 is that sovereign law trumps (no pun intended) international law (such as exists), then the cry “violation of international law” becomes at best inappropriate; at worst nonsensical.
But there is more.
Enter into this mix of “sources” the enfant terrible of international relations known as the United Nations which would have us believe that such a body of (international) law actually exists.
On the contrary, what should become evident to anybody who follows the UN is that that brackish body does nothing but debate and pass endless resolutions most of which have no binding effect on anyone. That is so because as the Legal Information Institute states:
International law largely operates upon the consent of participating nations because no governing body exists to explicitly enforce international agreements. The Charter of the United Nations is the document that expounds upon international law, but the United Nations cannot enforce those laws directly in the same way that a sovereign state can enforce its laws domestically. R3
The USA-Venezuela Conflict
Almost everyone one who has commented on the USA-Venezuela conflict claims that the US action is “illegal under international law” or some such similar phrase. As we said before when you ask such individuals to state which international is being violated there is either some idiotic reply such “go and do the research” or just deafening silence.
The only so-called international law which anyone could reference is a single article in the UN charter, article 2(4). Here is that article:
Those who wish to attempt following the myriad of nuances, exceptions, decisions etc. associated with this clause can do so here:
Clearly the very language here does not have the character of “letter of the law” but takes on the “spirit” of a general principle or mutual understanding among states. In the context of jurisprudence (legal philosophy), a principle is very different from a regulation.
A principle is a general guide as to how things should be done. It is not a rigid regulation in a statute book, the violation of which brings a specific remedy or set of remedies which a judge can prescribe in a court.
So, the statement that the US has violated international law by extracting President Maduro from Venezuela is a non-sequitur not to mention non-enforceable! The action may not have been desirable but there is no “international law” or UN law that explicitly says you cannot do that.
The above conclusion does not necessarily mean that we agree with the US administration’s action. We can debate such action on MORAL OR ETHICAL GROUNDS.
However, morality and legality are not the same kettle of fish. Everything that is regarded as morally or ethically right is not prescribed in law. On the other hand, everything that might be prescribed in or allowed under the law may not be morally acceptable or acceptable to some. Two examples are legalized abortion and state sanctioned prostitution.
Conclusion
The takeaway from this intentionally short discussion of international law is that we would wish people to do the research before opening their mouths to make statements that are half-truths or blatant lies. Even Scripture hammers such a practice:
Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish. Proverbs 18:13, New Living Translation
And that is just as well because a few verses down in the same chapter it states:
“Life and death are in the power of the tongue and those who love it will eat its fruit.” Proverbs 18:21, Berean Standard Bible.
On the negative side, that is why there is such a thing as slander or libel.
We believe in freedom of speech but where does it say that freedom of speech means freedom to tell lies? We don’t expect people to tell lies so specifying “truthfulness” as a parameter of free speech is a no-brainer!
Regrettably, however, this is something many Americans do not understand about free speech notwithstanding their claim to be a first world society. Let’s not follow their bad example.
About the Author
