Donald Trump said it casually, and perhaps it was even a slip of the tongue – but senior lecturer in International Criminal Law Marieke de Hoon remembers it clearly.
The attack on Venezuela, the US president said during his press conference on Saturday, was “one of the most precise attacks on sovereignty ever.” Perhaps Trump did not mean it that way, says De Hoon, but it was a carefully worded admission of guilt: “That is the core of the crime of ‘aggression’ – an attack on the sovereignty of another state.”
Not that the evidence in a possible criminal case against Trump before an international tribunal would be a problem at all. Legal experts are in complete agreement: the attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro is a blatant violation of almost all rules of the game between countries.
“Shocking,” says De Hoon. “Another blow,” says Anna Marhold, university lecturer in international law in Leiden. “A game changer“, says André Nollkaemper, who, according to the Amsterdam professor, raises existential questions about future relations between states. “Just saying ‘this is not allowed’ is perhaps a bit too simple a reflex.”
An act of aggression
According to the experts, not too many words need to be said about the legal content. Operation ‘Absolute Resolve’ was an act of aggression, a violation of the sovereignty of the country of Venezuela and of the immunity that Maduro enjoys as head of state. The fact that he was a dictator unrecognized by much of the world is irrelevant. The fact that he was wanted in the US for ‘narco-terrorism’ (an argument made by US Vice President Vance at X) neither.
Moreover, experts say, Trump’s announcement that the US will ‘run’ Venezuela is a gross violation of the non-intervention principle, which prescribes that countries should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. “International law is built on the concept that all countries are legally equal,” says Marhold. “The fact that political reality is often different does not alter that principle.”
Officers in New York stand guard at the Metropolitan Detention Center, awaiting the arrival of kidnapped Venezuelan President Maduro.
Photo AP
During the press conference on Saturday it became all too clear that as far as Trump is concerned, that principle can be thrown into the trash bin. The American president threatened the authoritarian regime in Cuba and Colombian President Gustavo Petro („He should watch his ass“) and made it clear that Washington decides what happens in the Western Hemisphere – even when it comes to the exploitation of precious resources, such as the enormous Venezuelan oil reserves.
Trump referred to the so-called Monroe Doctrine, which he immediately renamed ‘Donroe Doctrine’. This doctrine goes back to President James Monroe (1758-1831), who made keeping European colonial powers out of the Western Hemisphere at the core of American foreign policy. The Trumpian interpretation of this goes a few steps further, says Marieke de Hoon: “The way he explains relations with the countries in the region and appropriates their resources essentially amounts to American colonialism.”
Weak response
In that light, European responses were lukewarm – or perhaps better said, rather half-hearted. EU foreign representative Kaja Kallas pointed out that the EU considers Maduro an “illegitimate leader”. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she hoped for a “peaceful and democratic” transfer of power in Venezuela in accordance with “international law and the UN Charter.”
The Dutch government also did not dare to condemn. In a statement, outgoing Minister of Foreign Affairs David van Weel (VVD) called on “all parties” to “respect international law”. In the House of Representatives, it was only the progressive parties that took a stand. D66 leader and possible future Prime Minister Rob Jetten stated in a statement that the American intervention is “at odds with international law”. Foreign spokespersons Derk Boswijk (CDA) and Eric van der Burg (VVD) refrained from such qualifications and only stated that they were following the situation ‘closely’.
The legal specialists are not happy with the lackluster responses from Europe. The invasion of Venezuela was certainly not the first American intervention in its own backyard – just think of the invasion of Panama and arrest of dictator Noriega in 1989. “But now intervention has been elevated to official American policy,” says Professor Nollkaemper. “And that is a huge change.”
In a world that is divided into spheres of influence by large countries, Europe will have to stand up for itself much more, says Marieke de Hoon. Not only by strengthening its own defense, but also by seeking allies in Africa, Asia and South America. “The crux is: how does Europe ensure that it becomes a bloc that is powerful enough to operate on the basis of its own world view.”
Maduro supporters cut an American flag in half in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela.
Photo Ariana Cubillos/AP
International law is under heavy pressure, but it is not dead yet, says Anna Marhold. “As far as the World Trade Organization is concerned, there are also voices saying: if the US no longer believes in free trade, then they should leave. And ultimately, even the US needs allies in the world.”
But De Hoon is more pessimistic. “Before the press conference, Trump spoke to Fox News. “No one can stop us,” he emphasized: nobody can stop us. That is the essence of his world view.”
The journalistic principles of NRC