simonshen patreon

【國際關係深度評 🇺🇸🇻🇪】美國的委內瑞拉軍事行動，有沒有不違反國際法的可能？（一）

🕑 Added 2026-01-07 23:01:02 +0000 UTC

Comments

堅離地書院 College

可以係委內瑞拉平行政府提出，見第二篇

堅離地書院 College

To be more constructive, a revised set of codes should be introduced rather than merely deconstructing the existing ones. Let's see.

堅離地書院 College

視乎國內權力核心中人如何回應

堅離地書院 College

ICJ 需要雙方同意才可以開庭，但PCA 可以單方面提出訴訟的

Sing Hei Hayden Tse

最有力嘅理據，係Maduro叫侵拉佢，同方唐鏡一樣，佢叫我打先打

George

Many claim that the ouster of Nicolás Maduro through military action represents the death of international law. This view is both misleading and historically blind. Far from undermining law, his removal signals that force can sometimes serve justice when international institutions have failed utterly. Maduro’s downfall was good news. For years, Venezuelans endured misery, exile, torture, and murder at the hands of a tyrant who crushed dissent with brutality. To see a poverty-stricken people freed from such oppression is to witness the restoration of dignity. While infringements of sovereignty is rejected on principle, the elation of Venezuelans was justified. Bystanders have no say in dictating what is good or bad for Venezuelans’ future. US intervention in Venezuela was not so much a violation of law as a vindication of its deeper spirit: the protection of human rights over the absolute sovereignty of criminals. It came as no surprise that Venezuela’s allies—Russia, Iran, mainland China, along with dictator cheerleaders in the US and the far-left across the West—took offense. Their outrage reflects not a principled defense of law but a cynical defense of political interests. To equate Maduro’s removal with a mortal blow to international law is to confuse shielding dictators with the protection of justice. Critics argue that by capturing an indicted dictator, Donald Trump “gave wings” to Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. But this’s a lazy and ahistorical narrative. These ruthless imperialists needed no precedent from Caracas to justify their aggression: they’d already murdered dissidents aboard, annexed Crimea, invaded Donbas, attempted to seize all of Ukraine, imposed junta rule in HK, militarily threatened Taiwan, and supported atrocities worldwide. Volodymyr Zelensky himself survived numerous assassination attempts long before Maduro’s fall. Their political calculus is often driven less by precedent than by the interplay of ambition, confidence, and risk appetite, reinforced by the conviction that military strength enables both the achievement of goals and the management of unfolding dynamics. Dictators were born with complete contempt for international law, though they’re happy to keep it in their playbook as a political tool against adversaries. Trampling on those laws is always on the agenda whenever it serves their own interests. As a result, the last three decades are littered with violations, massacres, and annexations that international law failed to prevent—from Sarajevo and Kigali to Aleppo, Mariupol, and Khartoum. These testify to the impotence of institutions that too often retreated in the face of atrocity. History offers clearer lessons: interventions like Tanzania’s 1979 ousting of Idi Amin or NATO’s 1999 action in Kosovo—both without full UN approval—ended genocidal regimes and saved lives when the Security Council was paralyzed. International law did not die in Caracas; it had long been hollowed out by inaction elsewhere. Thus, Maduro’s ouster should be seen not as the collapse of law but as a rare moment of moral rearmament. Democracies, long paralyzed by hesitation, may rediscover the principle—rooted in just war traditions—that force can sometimes enforce law when institutions fail to do so. In truth, the death of international law lies not in the removal of tyrants but in the persistent failure to confront them. To conflate Maduro’s fall with lawlessness is to invert reality: it was not Caracas that killed international law, but the endless aggressions of dictators and the indifference that enabled them. In Caracas, law was not buried—it was, imperfectly, defended. And justly so, for dictators never abide by international law—only by force. Therefore, the only language they understand when one has the means is force. Having said that, a successful US president shouldn’t reduce America’s role in the world to “might-makes-right.” Looking ahead, the key determinant of how Trump’s call for this bold military operation is rated will likely be the extent to which remaining Venezuelan authorities comply with US demands and facilitate an orderly transition. More important, it’ll be judged by how the lives of ordinary Venezuelans are genuinely improved in the post-Maduro era. Furthermore, Trump would help his own course if he broke new ground in the Greenland affair without resorting to military occupation, though he and his cabinet appear to have staged a familiar MAGA set piece: a “start high, end low” dealmaking show.