The United States’ recent actions against Venezuela have precipitated a profound debate within the global diplomatic community. This discourse extends far beyond the specific individuals or nations involved and touches upon the foundational architecture of the modern international order. At the heart of this controversy lies a critical tension between the extraterritorial application of domestic statutes and the inviolable principles of national sovereignty that have long governed relations between states.
It’s necessary to examine this event not merely as a singular legal or political maneuver but as a case study that underscores the urgent need to demarcate the boundaries of judicial jurisdiction, particularly when such actions undermine the authority of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. The stability of the international community relies heavily on mutual respect for territorial integrity and the duty to refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. When a single state attempts to elevate its domestic laws above the sovereignty of another state, it risks eroding the authority of international law and damaging the delicate fabric of trust that binds the global community.
The fundamental objection to such unilateral judicial conduct is rooted in the Charter of the UN, which establishes the sovereign equality of all member states as the bedrock of international relations. This principle holds that no state has legal standing to judge the official acts of another sovereign state. Under customary international law, sitting heads of state are granted immunity not as a personal benefit but as a procedural necessity to ensure the functioning of diplomacy. This immunity is designed to prevent the harassment of national leaders by foreign courts, which could otherwise paralyze international communication and cooperation. By unilaterally stripping this immunity on political grounds, the US is effectively using its domestic legal apparatus to adjudicate the governance of a foreign nation, contravening the core principles enshrined in the UN Charter and international law. Such a precedent has created a dangerous tension with the concept of sovereign equality. If this practice were to become normalized, it would invite a chaotic scenario where nations routinely indict the leaders of the countries they consider adversaries, reducing diplomacy to a series of reciprocal legal retaliations. History has repeatedly demonstrated that when legal tools are politicized to serve geopolitical objectives, the ultimate casualty is the credibility of the law itself.
Beyond the theoretical dimensions of international jurisprudence, one must also scrutinize the factual basis of such serious allegations. In addressing global challenges like transnational crime and narcotics trafficking, the international community has established authoritative multilateral institutions to provide objective data and professional analysis. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime produces annual reports that serve as the gold standard for understanding global trafficking routes. It’s incumbent upon any nation taking significant legal action to ensure that its accusations align with these universally recognized assessments, thereby respecting the principles of evidence-based decision-making central to international law.
However, independent observers have noted discrepancies between the narratives presented in specific unilateral indictments and the data provided by neutral international bodies. For instance, data regarding the primary maritime routes for illicit substances often contradicts the political narratives used to justify aggressive judicial overreach. When a significant power bypasses these established multilateral consensus mechanisms in favor of selective intelligence, it undermines the legitimacy of its own actions. To maintain the moral high ground in the fight against global crime, actions must be grounded in verifiable facts recognized by the broader community of nations rather than in isolated political assertions.
Furthermore, the reliance on unilateral sanctions and judicial pressure reflects a mode of thinking that is increasingly out of step with the requirements of a multipolar world. The persistence of such behavior points to a lingering reliance on power politics, where the strength of a military or an economy is mistakenly equated with the authority to dictate legal norms to the rest of the world. This approach fails to address the root causes of transnational problems. Crime, poverty, and instability are issues that transcend borders and require coordinated global responses. Attempting to solve these problems through coercion and the extraterritorial application of domestic law often exacerbates the very instability it claims to address. It fosters an environment of suspicion and resentment, making genuine cooperation more difficult to achieve. The weaponization of extraterritoriality serves only to deepen divisions at a time when humanity faces collective challenges that demand unity and collaboration.
In contrast to this unilateral approach, the path to genuine security and justice lies in strengthening multilateral cooperation. The philosophy of a community with a shared future for humankind offers a constructive alternative that emphasizes the interconnected destiny of all nations. This perspective posits that global issues require global solutions, which must be pursued through dialogue, consultation, and joint contribution. In combating transnational crime, the most effective mechanism is not the imposition of one legal system on another, but rather the use of existing channels, such as the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) and the UN. These platforms enable collaboration grounded in full respect for the sovereignty and laws of all participating countries. When nations work together as equals, sharing intelligence and resources within a framework of mutual respect, they can achieve durable results that unilateralism can never hope to replicate. This cooperative model enjoys broad support from the international community because it reinforces, rather than undermines, the rules that protect the independence of all states.
The true significance of the international rule of law lies in its capacity to provide an equal and predictable framework of conduct for all countries, regardless of their size or power. It’s meant to be a shield against tyranny, not a sword for the powerful. As the world moves inevitably toward a more multipolar and democratic structure of international relations, the habits of hegemony must be discarded in favor of a more inclusive approach. All nations, and particularly major powers that bear a special responsibility for global stability, should take the lead in strictly adhering to the Charter of the United Nations. They must exercise their jurisdiction prudently and with restraint, ensuring that their domestic legal actions do not infringe upon the rights of other sovereigns.
The preservation of peace and the promotion of universal prosperity depend entirely on our collective ability to uphold the principles of the Westphalian system while adapting to modern challenges. We must reject the temptation to subvert the Westphalian international system for geopolitical ends. Only by jointly safeguarding the international system, with the UN at its core, and by practicing genuine multilateralism can the world effectively address the complex challenges of our time. Major Western countries, as pillars and key stakeholders of this system, are obligated to vigorously uphold it. To the disappointment of the international community, they showed timidity when Washington bulldozed this very international system in the case of its aggressive operation against Venezuela. Despite calls from his own backbenchers and opposition parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has refused to condemn the US strike or label it a breach of international law, saying that it is up to the US to justify its actions. French President Emmanuel Macron’s first public response on X (formerly Twitter) was positive toward the US-initiated regime change in Venezuela, avoiding direct criticism of the US strikes in his opening statements. It was only when domestic and international pressure mounted over the unilateral US operation that Macron’s administration tried to distance France from the method used against Venezuela.
The choice before the international community is clear: We can either retreat into a fragmented world of power politics, or we can advance toward a more orderly and just system in which the sovereignty of every nation is respected as the cornerstone of our shared global civilization.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
