FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The attack ordered by US President Donald Trump on Venezuela constitutes a "serious violation of international law and an act of aggression against a sovereign state."
This is how Professor Marina Castellaneta, a lecturer in International Law at the University of Bari, describes it, commenting on the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by US forces.
According to her, the action directly contradicts the United Nations Charter.
"Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force. This is a mandatory norm, from which it can only be deviated from in the case of self-defense, after an armed attack suffered. In this case, this condition does not exist," explains Castellaneta.
The Trump administration has justified the operation as part of the fight against international drug trafficking, but for the professor, this argument does not hold up.
"For drug trafficking, human trafficking or international corruption, there are specific UN conventions. The instruments are legal: cooperation between authorities, investigation and trial. In no case is the use of military force against a sovereign state permitted," she emphasizes.
Even the serious accusations against Maduro do not justify such an intervention.
"There is an open case at the International Criminal Court and Venezuela has ratified its Statute. There, the processes are conducted according to the rule of law. This is not an arrest warrant, but the kidnapping of a person. Furthermore, a head of state enjoys immunity, a principle that the US has defended in other cases, such as that of Netanyahu," Castellaneta underlines.
The UN Secretary-General has called the case a "dangerous precedent." According to the Italian expert, the reason is clear.
"This is a flagrant violation by a permanent member of the Security Council. The lukewarm reactions of the international community show a fear of taking a stand and risk undermining one of the pillars of international law."
Regarding the reactions, Castellaneta says that the Security Council is practically paralyzed due to the veto power of the US, but a resolution in the UN General Assembly would be possible.
"It would be interesting to see how many countries would openly condemn Trump. If we condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine, we should condemn American aggression against Venezuela by the same standard," she says.
The vague positions of several European governments, including Italy, which speak of "legitimate intervention" while simultaneously condemning the use of force, are considered diplomatic formulas without a clear legal basis.
"No one explains what legal legitimacy this action is based on. Even the Panama case with Noriega was a clear violation of international law," she adds.
Nor is questioning the legitimacy of Maduro's election a justification.
"Such problems exist in many countries and are addressed by international organizations with sanctions, not with unilateral military decisions. This shows an imperialist approach, also reflected in the US national security strategy documents," Castellaneta emphasizes.
On December 16, the Trump administration declared the Maduro regime a “Foreign Terrorist Organization,” presenting this as a legal basis for military action. But for the professor, this is a unilateral initiative with no international legal value.
"Even before, such labels have been used to justify wars, such as the case of Iraq," she recalls.
Even from the perspective of American law, Trump's action is seen as controversial.
"Congress authorization would be needed, unless there is an immediate danger to the US. However, other presidents in the past have acted without prior approval, reporting back later," Castellaneta concludes.
Lini një Përgjigje