Now, I honestly don't give a crap about the UN and International Law, but I thought this was an interesting article for those who think this stuff matters.
It goes pretty deep into legalese that may get boring, but for people interested in this crap it's a good analysis.
I took an international relations class one time, where the professor just ignored the textbook on this, and explained that "international law" isn't really a thing, and can't be for lack of an enforcement angle. It's rather a phrase that we (Americans) use to make things we don't like sound worse ("they're violating international law"), while we will always just "act in our national interest."
I don't like realpolitik, but it's just objectively the case that that's how it is. Russia uses the same rhetoric ("America is violating international law 😡") when the USA does things it doesn't like.
Personally, I would like it if states stopped treating people like children who need to be bullshitted, but I know they can't as that's foundational to their ability to function
Accurate. The US does not always play the game. For instance it doesn't acknowledge the International Criminal Court
Haha I never knew this
The basic thrust here is saying the the "Barr Memo" is flawed thus brings into question any actions following that memo (ie. Maduro capture).
It could be that this particular argument is correct, I'm not a lawyer and it all goes a bit over my head anyway.....however it seems there is a suitable counter-argument.
"Self-defense" is always permitted via international law.
So, what if a head-of-state is intentionally conspiring to break your laws? Importing drugs, causing cartel violence, rigging voting machines to alter elections, etc.
At what point does it become justified to take action against that head-of-state?
The counter-counter-argument to this will say "sue in the International Court of Justice (ie. The Hague)" - however if you need permission from 3rd party body to perform self-defense then (a) that itself denies you the inherent right to self-defense, and (b) it ultimately undermines your sovereignty.
It is a messy issue though....what if a country declared on completely made up charges that another head-of-state was breaking some local law....you can see how it would spiral out of control.
I'm willing to bet they are going to push Maduro to "confess and/or admit guilt", which in case that happens it will provide a stronger case to the administration on why this was justified....
Not looking this from the angle of crappy law - local or international, this is a surrender by Maduro, but Trump wanted to scare the hell out of rest of the world about the power. In fact when you look at the videos been circulated internet, it's obvious that only one side was firing, not a single fire in defense, Venezuela was given a toy S400 by Russia?
Another is that was Maduro lining in some La la land, didn't he have any guards?
In fact he had talks with US 3 days ago, which actually culminated a negotiated surrender and this is how he would be able to save his government, now that the Venezuela vice president has taken charge it's obvious.
Lots of virtue signaling about the legality going on... but no actual filings. Maybe these people don't actually know something the admins lawyers don't.
The UN is a joke, and so are international laws. Since the dawn of humanity, the law has been imposed by the strongest and those with the biggest weapons. And since the end of World War II, the US government has dictated the laws.
The US has the bigger guns more too 💪 in this system as explained in the book Modern Chains theres an example that a person will lie till they have a gun pointed at their head then they will denounce..
Everything just happened so fast the minute I heard of it was the minute it ended thanks to stacker news keeping me up to date with everything.
Agreed.
The Supremacy Clause does not distinguish between self executing and non self executing treaties in terms of their standing as supreme law. That distinction arises in the context of court enforceability not in determining whether the President must comply.
The historical and doctrinal evidence shows that treaties regardless of self execution status carry binding force on the executive. This is a necessary safeguard against unilateral disregard for international obligations. Adopting the Barr memo’s reasoning would set a precedent where the President could treat certain treaty commitments as optional whenever domestic litigation avenues are closed. That undermines both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and risks weakening US credibility in adhering to the rule based international order.
The deeper issue is whether the Office of Legal Counsel acts as a guardian of sound legal interpretation or as a facilitator of executive expedience.