From the perspective of Public International Law, which emerged with the United Nations Charter after the end of World War II, the capture of Nicolás Maduro by the United States of America is, in principle, illegal, given that Article 2.4 of the aforementioned Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State
Two exceptions exist in relation to what is stipulated in said article. The first is that there is express authorization from the UN Security Council, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter. It is evident that, in the case at hand, such a resolution does not exist. The second is set forth in Article 51 of the Charter and refers to the right of self-defense. Along with these two exceptions, International Law admits a third figure that, although it does not strictly constitute an exception, operates as a circumstance that excludes the illegality of the action. We are referring to the so-called intervention by invitation or consent of the territorial State.
Let us first address the issue of self-defense that has been invoked by the United States. In this regard, Washington has maintained that Venezuela, and specifically its president, Nicolás Maduro, would be involved in drug trafficking and narcoterrorism activities; that such activities would constitute a grave and continuous threat to its national security; and that, since the Venezuelan State has not acted effectively against these threats, the United States would be legitimized to act in self-defense. Whether this interpretation is correct or not is a matter that, if necessary, will have to be determined by the International Court of Justice. However, for this judicial body to be able to rule, it is necessary, as a prior prerequisite, for a State to file a lawsuit against the United States before said Court. That State could be Venezuela itself or any other that deems norms of International Law to have been violated. A comparable example can be found in the Gaza conflict. While it is true that, in public debate, it is frequently stated that what has occurred constitutes genocide, what has happened is certainly a barbarity, the truth is that only the International Court of Justice can legally determine whether the facts fit this classification or not. For this, it is essential that some State file the corresponding complaint. To date, and as far as is known, the only State that has initiated proceedings before the Court in relation to Gaza has been South Africa.
Let us now enter, with surgical precision, into the question of whether Venezuela has consented to the United States intervening and capturing its president. From this perspective, we must start from a fundamental premise: the government of Nicolás Maduro is illegitimate. Presidential elections were held last year, and the winner by a very wide margin—as recognized by most States, including all members of the European Union—was Edmundo González. Despite this, Maduro refused to recognize the result and remained in power. In this context, there are, in my opinion, sufficient indications to seriously consider the possibility of an intervention by invitation. From a strictly operational and military point of view, it is practically inconceivable that a capture of this nature could be carried out without the collaboration of internal actors, and more specifically, individuals integrated into the Venezuelan state apparatus itself. Faced with an illegitimate government and a president who has usurped another candidate's electoral victory, an essential question arises: who actually holds the competent authority to express the will of the State? It is reasonable to doubt that this will coincides with that expressed by Nicolás Maduro.
Finally, I will offer a personal opinion, dear reader, although it is supported by an increasingly relevant current within Public International Law. In my view, the principle of non-interference must be broken when serious and systematic violations of fundamental rights occur. In the Venezuelan case, two particularly relevant circumstances are cumulatively present: a manifestly illegitimate government and a continued practice of violations of fundamental rights, such as arbitrary and illegal detentions, torture, political repression, and persecution of dissent. In scenarios like this, I understand that an intervention by another State, even unilateral in nature, could be justified with the primary goal of protecting the population and putting an end to such violations. The ultimate legality of such action should, in due course, be examined by the International Court of Justice. A recent example of this logic can be found in the actions of the United States itself when, a few days ago, they unilaterally bombed positions of the terrorist group Boko Haram in northern Nigeria, with the fundamental objective of preventing further massacres of civilians, especially Christian communitiesI therefore pose the following question: can and should the principle of non-interference always prevail, even when a State becomes the main violator of the fundamental rights of its own population? Or, on the contrary, should the dignity of the human person prevail over sovereignty used as a shield for barbarism and repression?In summary, whether the self-defense invoked by the United States conforms to International Law or not is a matter that, if necessary, the International Court of Justice will have to decide, provided that any State files the corresponding complaint. Likewise, the question of whether or not there has been valid consent from the Venezuelan State for the intervention will have to be clarified over time. Be that as it may, in our opinion, in today's world, the effective protection of fundamental human rights must prevail over a rigid and anachronistic conception of the principle of non-interference