In the early hours of Jan. 3, the Trump administration deposed one of the Western Hemisphere’s most brutal dictators in a brazen and spectacular raid. The removal of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro sparked a firestorm of debate in the United States and elsewhere on the legality of those actions.

Under American law, the administration has argued that there are both law enforcement and national security rationales for the move.

While contested, several recent U.S. presidents have been cleared for actions short of fuller-scale military intervention. Under international law, however, many commentators have pointed to Article 2 (4) of the United Nations’ charter as the reason why taking Maduro constitutes illegal action.

However, the development of "responsibility to protect" in the 1990s and 2000s, which sought to limit the protection of national sovereignty if a dictator kills and/or endangers his own people, provides a carve-out exception under specific circumstances.

Maduro fits the definition of a dictator who made life worse for Venezuelans, encouraged narcotrafficking and failed to stop the rapid increase in homicides within his country.

Charges of

© USA TODAY