The University for Peace Research Centre at the University of Brescia considers it necessary to intervene in the international debate concerning the arrest of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, by the United States, recalling some fundamental principles of general international law.
The international legal system is based on the principle of sovereign equality of States, enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations and consolidated in customary law. States are peers among peers: no one can exercise authority or coercion over another. This gives rise to the prohibition of interference in internal affairs, which guarantees every state the right to freely determine its political and institutional structure, including its form of government, even when it is authoritarian or dictatorial in nature.
International law does not give any state the power to intervene unilaterally to influence or sanction the internal political choices of another sovereign state. From this perspective, the action taken by the United States against Venezuela appears to be incompatible with a fundamental principle of international law.
A direct expression of sovereign equality is the general rule that heads of state and government in office enjoy immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction (immunity ratione personae). This immunity prevents them from being arrested or tried by the courts of other states and does not constitute a form of impunity, but rather a tool aimed at protecting state sovereignty and the stability of international relations. It follows that, even if President Maduro were found responsible for the crimes attributed to him, it would not be for US judges to exercise jurisdiction over him. Any criminal liability could be determined before the Venezuelan judicial authorities or, if the acts fell within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, before that Court itself, since Venezuela is a State Party to the Rome Statute.
A further pillar of the international legal order is the prohibition of the use of force in international relations, which is not only enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter but is also a general international rule of a binding nature and therefore non-derogable and mandatory for all States. The only exception allowed is the right to self-defence, which can only be exercised in the event of an armed attack and in accordance with the requirements of necessity and proportionality. In the case of Venezuela, there has been no armed aggression or threat that would justify the use of force. The military action taken by the United States therefore constitutes a violation of the prohibition on the use of force and of the United Nations collective security system.
The University for Peace Research Centre reiterates that international law is not optional or subject to political expediency. It retains full legal validity and continues to be the essential benchmark for assessing the legitimacy of state conduct. Even in times of crisis, international law does not fail, as demonstrated by its historical role in preventing the recurrence of the barbarities of the 20th century. It is from this awareness that the United Nations collective security system originates, as well as the decision to elevate the prohibition of the use of force to a binding norm, established to protect future generations and an international order based on law rather than force.
The recognition and application of international law are essential conditions for the maintenance of peace.
University for Peace
(text written by Chiara Di Stasio)