Donald Trump’s administration seemingly went rogue with its attack in Venezuela, which led to the capture of President Nicolas Maduro.
More than 150 aircraft were involved in the daring operation, which saw explosions ring out in Caracas as Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were detained before being taken to New York, where they are facing narco-terrorism charges.
United Nations (UN) Secretary General Antonio Guterres, along with member state governments including France, Spain, Canada and Germany, have questioned whether the US military operation violated international law.
Follow live: Trump issues fresh warning to Venezuela
Sir Keir Starmer and his government have so far refused to say whether they believe Mr Trump went against the law.
Sky News has spoken to law experts about whether the attack was legal and what implications it could have across the world.
US broke international law, experts say
Trump’s Maduro raid broke international law, Scottish leader suggests – as PM says US must ‘set out justifications’
Trump strikes Venezuela: What happens next?
Nicolas Maduro is in a jail housing America’s ‘most unwanted’ – and it’s far from presidential
Mariano de Alba, a Venezuelan lawyer specialising in international law for the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Sky News there was “no legal justification” for the US attack.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg agreed, saying “international law bans invading another country and capturing its president”.
Both experts referred to an article of the UN Charter, an agreement between all UN member states, which reads: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Both the US and Venezuela are members of the UN.
Mr Rozenberg added: “The United Nations can authorise the use of force, but it hasn’t done so here. There is the right of self-defence, but that applies only if an armed attack occurs against a member state. Now, whatever President Trump may argue, I think that would be quite a stretch.”
Mr de Alba added that the attack sets “a worrying precedent for the region, because it simply means that the current US administration is willing to go against the basic rules of international law to try to impose its decision, its will”.
He added: “It’s also, I think, a worrying precedent for the rest of the world because it opens the door to a possible justification of action by other world powers like China and Russia… [to do] similar things.”
Mr Rozenberg agreed, adding: “Of course, there is concern that if President Trump can do this, what can President Putin [or] President XI do in Russia or China if they want to invade a neighbouring country like Ukraine or Taiwan?”
How is the US justifying the attack?
The Trump administration has long accused Venezuela of failing to cooperate with anti-drug efforts over domestic criminal groups.
Maduro was charged with narco-terrorism in the United States in 2020. Specifically, he has been charged with: narco-terrorism conspiracy; cocaine importation conspiracy; possession of machine guns and destructive devices; and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the US.
He is also considered to have illegitimately announced himself the winner of the last general election, having waged a campaign of fear and repression for years, arresting and locking up thousands of opposition supporters and political foes.
Since coming into power in 2013, Maduro’s regime has also been heavily linked with terrorist organisations internationally.
Mr Rozenberg said: “You may well say that Trump… is protecting America from cocaine smuggling, is protecting the rest of the world from Venezuela’s links with terrorist groups in other parts of the world, particularly Iran.
“So there is every justification from a political point of view for what president Trump is seeking to do.”
Read more:
Why Trump may not stop at Venezuela
Why is Trump interested in Venezuela’s oil?
Analysis: Maduro’s rule was disastrous
But he and Mr de Alba both agree that these motives still don’t justify the US military operation under international law.
Mr Rozenberg said that in these circumstances, you would normally see a leader be extradited, rather than captured through a military intervention.
Could this lead to similar US attacks in other countries?
Mr Rozenberg suggested Mr Trump will take little notice of what UN leaders say, even if they condemn his military intervention in Venezuela, and that he is pushing for a “new world order”.
And, after pledging to “run” Venezuela until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” of power, Mr Trump has appeared to threaten other countries with similar treatment to achieve his foreign policy aims, such as Colombia and Cuba.
But Mr de Alba said he believes the US government would have even less grounds for such action in other countries.
“I do think that in the case of Colombia, Mexico, the US administration is going to be much more careful because, if they’re going to act in a similar fashion, they would need those countries to have a president that was not duly elected. That’s not the case of Mexico and Colombia.
“And they would also need an indictment by US courts against the people that they’re going to go after.”
He suggested the Trump administration is more interested in “projecting a lot of strength” through the Venezuela attack to “coerce” governments in Latin America, rather than attacking them next.
