Sun Jan 04 11:07:32 UTC 2026: Here’s a summary of the text, followed by a news article version:
Summary:
A professor of law at Howard University argues that any US intervention in Venezuela to abduct President Maduro would be a violation of international law, not law enforcement. The author contends that such an action lacks any legal basis under the UN Charter or established legal principles, and is merely an assertion of power, undermining the international legal order. The author further criticizes the US for selective enforcement of international norms, highlighting the hypocrisy of pursuing Maduro for alleged human rights violations while ignoring similar accusations against other leaders. The article also criticizes the UN’s failure to constrain powerful states and suggests relocating the UN headquarters to a country that respects treaty obligations. It concludes that the US action would prove international law has been replaced by preference.
News Article:
Legal Expert Condemns Possible US Action Against Venezuela as “International Vandalism”
WASHINGTON D.C. – A potential U.S. intervention in Venezuela to seize President Nicolás Maduro would be a blatant violation of international law and an act of “international vandalism,” according to a professor of law at Howard University School of Law. In an op-ed, the professor argues that any such action would have no basis in the UN Charter or accepted legal principles, representing instead an assertion of raw power over established legal norms.
“The forcible seizure of a sitting head of state by the US has no foothold in international law,” the professor writes. “None. It is not self-defence… It was not authorised by the UN Security Council.”
The legal expert dismisses claims that human rights violations or drug trafficking could justify removing a foreign head of state, calling such reasoning “particularly corrosive” and lacking any foundation in treaty or customary law.
The author also criticized the US for selective enforcement of international law, pointing to allegations against other leaders, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where the U.S. hasn’t pursued similar action. This inconsistency, the professor asserts, demonstrates that power, not law, is driving the U.S.’s actions.
The op-ed further argues that the UN has failed to constrain powerful states like the U.S., becoming a “stage prop for its erosion.” The author proposes relocating the UN headquarters away from the U.S., suggesting that treaty obligations of the current host country are optional for the US. The author believes that this action is a sign that international order has been replaced by preference.
First Piper 