'US intervention in Venezuela violated international law'

During a US American military operation on Saturday, special forces captured head of state Nicolás Maduro and his wife and took them to New York. There they are to be tried for "drug terrorism."

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz did not want to commit himself on whether the US action in Venezuela was permissible under international law: "The legal assessment of the US operation is complex," he said. The chancellor did add, however, that "in principle, the relations between states must be conducted in accordance with the principles of international law." This seemed to suggest that he had doubts about the legality of the operation.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul later stated in an interview with Deutschlandfunk public radio that the US must explain to the international community the legal basis for its intervention.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

US President Donald Trump's administration is portraying Maduro's capture as a law enforcement operation rather than a military attack.

International law expert Christoph Safferling from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg disputes the legality. In his opinion, the situation is clear: "The US has violated the prohibition of the use of force under international law, as guaranteed in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. According to this, states must respect each other's political independence and territorial sovereignty," he told DW in a written response.

The only justification for the use of force, wrote Safferling, is the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. "But for that, Venezuela would have to have launched an 'armed attack' against the US, which was not the case. Drug trafficking does not justify using force."

Safferling refers to Maduro's capture as a kidnapping. "Capture pursuant to a US arrest warrant is possible in principle, but not in an international context. Such action may only be taken with the express consent of the Venezuelan government or by the Venezuelan authorities themselves. Neither of these conditions was met, which means that the capture was unlawful and therefore constitutes kidnapping."

Still, one of his colleagues in Bonn, Matthias Herdegen, pointed out to DW: "A violent kidnapping doesn't rule out conducting a criminal trial. The most famous example of this was the conviction in Israel of Eichmann, who was held responsible for the Holocaustafter being kidnapped from Argentina by the Mossad."

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has called the American military action a dangerous precedent. Donald Trump himself has threatened further interventions in Colombia and Mexico. He also wants to bring Greenland, which is part of Denmark, under American control.

In the aftermath of the US attack, it swiftly became apparent that other governments are likely to view it as a welcome justification for their own actions.

The deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council and former president Dmitry Medvedev condemned the US action as "illegal," but at the same time acknowledged that US President Donald Trump was following through on protecting US interests — an apparent reference to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But Medvedev went even further when he said he could imagine similar kidnappings of other heads of state, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

However, international law expert Matthias Herdegen warns against simplifications when making comparisons: "When comparing violations of territorial integrity, a sharp distinction should be made between their nature and severity," he wrote to DW. "Russia's war of conquest against Ukraine, which violates international law, has a different dimension than the limited military operation in Caracas."

"International criminal law also makes distinctions here. It should be noted that some governments that are now outraged at the US have long since abandoned their commitment to international law on the prohibition of violence, territorial claims and human rights. This does not justify the US's actions, but it does highlight the need for differentiation here as well," Herdegen added.

AfD: What counts on the international stage is strength, not academic ethics

Meanwhile, the German government is coming under domestic pressure to take a clearer stance against the US action. Green Party leader Felix Banaszak said, "Wishy-washy statements encourage Trump to set his sights on new targets." Critical voices were also heard from the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), a coalition partner of Merz's Christian Democratic Union (CDU). SPD foreign policy spokesman Adis Ahmetovic told the news portal t-online: "US President Donald Trump is undermining the international order and setting off a dangerous chain reaction."

In contrast, Markus Frohnmaier, foreign policy spokesman for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, expressed understanding for the US's actions: "International law is not a natural law, but a political interpretative tool," Frohnmaier told the Reuters news agency. "Whether you approve of it or not, what counts on the international stage is strength, not academic ethics." Various members of Trump's administration have repeatedly expressed sympathy for the AfD.

International law expert Matthias Herdegen believes the German government is trying to walk a tightrope. "On the one hand, the US operation is a serious blow to the Venezuelan narco-dictatorship and has been met with great relief throughout the Western world (except among the few sympathizers of the left-wing dictatorship in Venezuela). On the other hand, respect for the fundamental principles of international law is, in a sense, part of Western Europe's DNA."

While the German government has so far avoided commenting clearly on the Venezuela operation, it has taken a clear stance on the issue of Greenland. Regarding Trump's claims to the Danish island, the German government is adamant that international law must be respected.

"Borders may not be redrawn by force, and territories may not be annexed by coercion," said government spokesman Sebastian Hille. "International law must be upheld." The German government is "clear in our communication with the US in this regard," he added.

This article was originally written in German.

While you're here: Every Tuesday, DW editors round up what is happening in German politics and society. You can sign up here for the weekly email newsletter, Berlin Briefing.