Some permanent members of the security council dont care…

Linkki Petteri Mikkosen artikkeliin

Tekoälyn antamia vastauksia

1) U.S. Military Operation to Capture Venezuelan President Maduro

What Happened

In early January 2026, U.S. military forces carried out a strike in Venezuela and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, transporting them to the U.S., where they face federal charges. The U.S. government has framed this as part of a law-enforcement and national security action against alleged narco-trafficking.

Legal Questions Identified by Experts

International law concerns

  • Use of force against another sovereign state without UN Security Council authorization or consent of that state generally violates the U.N. Charter. Many legal scholars, diplomats, and international bodies have said the U.S. action lacks clear legal justification under international law.

U.S. domestic law

  • A Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo argued the president had inherent constitutional authority to order the operation without explicitly addressing international law questions.

No judicial finding of legality or illegality

  • There has been no authoritative court decision (U.S. Supreme Court or international tribunal) ruling the capture legal or illegal. Legal debates are ongoing.

International reaction

  • UN officials, analysts, and some states have condemned the operation as unlawful and violating the sovereignty of Venezuela.

Summary — Capturing Maduro

  • It has not been legally validated by a court as lawful.
  • Many experts assert the strike and abduction likely violated international law, though the U.S. government has provided its own legal rationale.
  • There is no criminal conviction of the U.S. president for this action.

So in strict legal terms:
📌 It is widely considered dubious under international law;
📌 It has not been judicially determined to be a criminal act by international or U.S. courts.

2) U.S. Attacks on Boats in International Waters

There is no credible evidence in reliable reporting that the U.S. has been systematically killing civilians on international waters without legal justification, outside the context of the broader Venezuela operation.

  • Reports discuss seizure of sanction-violating tankers and strikes tied to the Venezuela campaign.
  • International law (UNCLOS, U.N. Charter) generally forbids deadly force on the high seas except in self-defense or hot pursuit according to strict rules.

If unjustified lethal force was used against civilian boats on the high seas, that would potentially violate:

  • International law on use of force, and
  • Law of the sea rules.

But there is no official determination or conviction stating that the president committed a crime for this.

3) Threats About Greenland

There is no legal or factual basis to say that the U.S. government has “taken over Greenland” or carried out military action there.

  • Public reports note political comments and rhetoric about Greenland, an autonomous part of Denmark, and discussions about control or influence, but not forcible occupation.

Annexing or attacking another sovereign territory without consent would be a clear violation of international law, but as of now such actions have not occurred. If they did, they would almost certainly be unlawful under the U.N. Charter.

Bottom Line (Legal Assessment)

For the Venezuela military action:

  • Legal status is contested. Many international law experts and officials say it likely violates international law.
  • No authoritative legal judgment exists declaring the president criminally liable for ordering it.

For lethal force on the high seas:

  • Use of deadly force must meet strict legal criteria; unjustified use would be unlawful — but no international court has adjudicated that.

For Greenland:

  • Rhetoric about taking territory does not constitute action; actual forcible occupation would clearly violate international law, but no such operation has occurred.