The Legality of Military Action in Venezuela
Contradicting claims of fact by politicians are often good opportunities for fact-checkers like us to step in and referee. But in some cases, competing claims boil down to matters of interpretation.
Such was the case when Democrats accused the Trump administration of violating both domestic and international law in the Jan. 3 military operation that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
“It’s clearly illegal under international law, right?” Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Jan. 4. “Full stop. U.N. charter. No question there.”
In an interview on CNN on Jan. 5, Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called the military action “blatantly illegal.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, meanwhile, claimed it was “a violation of the law to do what they did without getting the authorization of Congress.”
White House officials defended the legality of the military action, arguing in part that the use of force was permitted via the United Nations Charter’s exception in cases of self-defense. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, for example, argued Maduro’s alleged cooperation with drug traffickers amounted to “direct threats to the United States.” Trump officials also insisted there was no legal need to notify Congress of the impending military action.
Sometimes the best we can do in these cases of differing legal interpretations is cite the facts and relevant laws, and solicit the expertise of legal experts.
That’s what Deputy Director Rob Farley and Staff Writer D’Angelo Gore did this week in their article, “Exploring the Legality Questions About Venezuela Military Strike.” They cited the applicable language in the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Constitution, as well as in a 1989 legal opinion cited by administration officials, and they asked experts whether those laws applied and whether the Trump military operation ran afoul of those laws.
Several experts on international law told us the military action was a clear violation of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits unjustified uses of military force by one country against another. And, they argued, the military action did not meet the charter’s exception for self-defense in response to an “armed attack.”
Experts also previously told us that the U.S. Constitution, according to an originalist interpretation, requires congressional approval for such use of force abroad. In practice, however, they noted that multiple presidents have unilaterally ordered military action without input from lawmakers.
See our full story for more.
|
