The abduction of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela’s capital has set off extensive debates about its legality. International law scholars overwhelmingly assume that, regardless of its constitutionality, the action violated Venezuela’s sovereignty. In fact, there are strong international legal justifications for the operation.

Indeed, at first glance, the invasion and abduction of Maduro would seem to be a “use of force… against the… political independence of any state,” in the language of the U.N. Charter Article 2(4). However, this is true when the attacked state’s government objects (as is typically the case). If the attacked state’s government consents, there is no violation of sovereignty, and this is the common case of what is known as “interventions” and military assistance.

Certainly, Maduro and his vice president strongly object to the U.S. operation. But the United States “does not recognize Nicolás Maduro as the president of Venezuela,” a policy established by then-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. So, his lack of consent is irrelevant........

© The Daily Signal