Asif Mahmood 

Can the president of Venezuela be tried in the United States, before an American court, under American law? The International Court of Justice answered this question clearly in 2002. The answer is no. A sitting president of one state cannot be prosecuted in the courts of another state. Does this immunity still apply even after presidential responsibilities in Venezuela have been assigned to Delcy Rodriguez under a Supreme Court order? Yes. Under international law, the immunity remains intact. Nicoas Maduro is still the president of Venezuela. At the time of his abduction, he was the president, and the appointment of an acting president does not extinguish the immunity attached to the lawful head of state. But has he not now become a former president? No. No state can leave the office of president vacant, which is why an interim arrangement becomes necessary. However, the lawful method for removing a president and rendering him a former head of state is defined strictly by the constitution of the country concerned. A president abducted as a result of foreign military aggression does not legally become a former president. He remains the president and continues to enjoy the shield of immunity. Under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, even a diplomat cannot be arrested or subjected to criminal proceedings. If that is the protection afforded to diplomats, how can a head of state be prosecuted, especially when he has been forcibly brought to another country following military aggression against his own state? Was this method of apprehension lawful? No. It was an illegal act and constitutes a crime under international law. It was an unlawful use of force against a sovereign state and a grave violation of the United Nations Charter. The United States has no legal right to conduct military action against another country. Under the United Nations Charter, there are only two lawful grounds for the use of force against a state. First, when a state has been attacked and responds in self defence under Article 51. Second, when the United Nations Security Council determines under Article 42 that armed action is necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. No other legal basis exists. The American action was neither self defence, as no attack had occurred, nor was it authorised by the Security Council. Whether the Venezuelan president is popular or unpopular is a deliberate distraction. The nature or quality of his government is irrelevant. The core issue is that under international law, neither the United States nor any other country has the right to sit in judgment over another state and decide that its government is undesirable and must therefore be changed through military action. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force or the threat of force against another state. Allegations, whether related to narcotics, personal conduct, or even ridicule such as claiming that someone mocks another leader’s mannerisms, cannot constitute legal justification for armed intervention. President Trump has stated in a press conference that the United States will temporarily assume administrative control of Venezuela until a transfer of power takes place. This ambition is also invalid under international law. The law does not permit one country to become the ruler of another. Article 2, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter recognises the sovereign equality of all states. Paragraph 7 of the same article prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of any state. The United States has trampled international law. It has also placed the very existence and credibility of the United Nations at risk. The objectives set out in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter have been openly violated. If the United Nations remains silent in the face of this aggression, a time will come when, after attending sessions of the General Assembly, it will be at the discretion of the United States to decide which presidents are allowed to return home and which are arrested and imprisoned. The United Nations must decide whether the world will be governed by international law or by Trumpism.