When power challenges international law

The recent military intervention by the United States in Venezuela, involving the use of armed force on the territory of a sovereign state and the arrest of its incumbent head of state, is not merely another episode of international tension. It is an event with serious legal implications, capable of undermining fundamental principles of international law and weakening the system of collective security established in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The international debate should not be reduced to political or ideological assessments of the Venezuelan regime. International law does not function as a mechanism for the moral appraisal of governments. It operates as a common, binding framework, precisely in order to prevent a return to an international system in which power substitutes law.

The prohibition of the use of force as the foundation of the international order

At the core of the international legal order lies Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which unequivocally prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

This prohibition is not a political aspiration. It constitutes a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), from which no derogation is permitted, whether on grounds of political expediency or alleged “higher” objectives.

The exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force are strictly limited: authorisation by the Security Council, or the exercise of self-defence following an armed attack, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter. Unilateral military intervention, even when framed as “law enforcement” or the pursuit of justice, is not recognised by international law as a lawful exception.

Sovereignty: not rhetoric, but a legal shield

Equally central is the principle of state sovereignty. Sovereignty is neither rhetorical ornamentation nor a shield for authoritarianism. It is a foundational principle of the sovereign equality of states and a prerequisite for international stability.

As the International Court of Justice has consistently held, even limited or temporary military presence on the territory of another state, without its consent, constitutes a violation of sovereignty.
This principle serves as a safeguard for small and medium-sized states that lack alternative means of deterrence beyond law and institutions.

The immunity of a head of state

The same legal framework governs the question of the immunity of a head of state. Under customary international law, an incumbent head of state enjoys full personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) from arrest and criminal prosecution by foreign states.

This immunity does not amount to impunity. It is a functional safeguard ensuring the orderly conduct of international relations. Accountability for serious international crimes, where established, lies with properly constituted international judicial mechanisms, not with unilateral military action.

Even if domestic criminal proceedings were to follow, the international responsibility of the state that committed an unlawful act would remain unaffected. Under international law, violations of jus cogens norms are not “cured” by outcomes, nor legitimised by political or moral justifications.

Most troubling, however, is the precedent such actions risk establishing. If it becomes accepted that powerful states may resort to force to arrest the political leadership of other states on the basis of unilateral criminal allegations, international law is reduced from a system of rules to an instrument of selective enforcement. The exception threatens to become the rule.

The European and Cypriot dimension

For Europe, which frequently defines itself as a community governed by law, silence or ambiguity in such circumstances undermines credibility.

For Cyprus in particular, the issue is existential. A small state whose security and international standing rest on respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of force cannot afford to tolerate “flexible” interpretations of these principles without eroding its own legal foundations.

Defending international law is not about defending specific individuals or regimes. It is about defending the very idea that international relations are governed by rules rather than arbitrary power. Because if international law does not apply when it is tested, then in practice it does not apply at all.

What is truly at stake

In an era of increasing geopolitical volatility, the value of international law is not measured in easy cases, but in difficult ones. When its defence entails cost, when it collides with power and faits accomplis, its substance is truly tested.

If the core rules of the United Nations Charter bend whenever power demands it, we are no longer speaking of an international legal order, but of a fragile balance of power. History has shown that such a balance has never provided security, least of all to those states that depend on it most.