We're getting a chance to observe this right now as the Trump administration commits acts of war against Venezuela. These are not necessarily crimes in any sense, even the 'international law' sense: nations are permitted to conduct wars against each other. A blockade of Venezuela is by definition an act of war; it isn't obviously a crime.
However, blockades can become crimes -- either war crimes or crimes against humanity -- if they meet certain criteria. Although otherwise legal, there are limits in the rules as to how the nations are allowed to fight.
Meanwhile, the imposition of the blockade by the United States in order to extract control of Venezuela's oil fields -- which the President outright says is his intention -- may be an act of aggression. Aggression is a crime, indeed in some sense it is the crime, under the international laws of war. The only argument against this being US aggression is that Venezuela decades ago nationalized oil fields that US companies had developed, which the President describes as theft (as, indeed, it was; but nations are permitted to steal, too, at least things in their own territories). So far none of these companies are agreeing to take back their old facilities even if the President can extract them by blockade or other force. What happens if you conquer an oil field and nobody will operate it?
An aside: Venezuela asked for a UN Security Council emergency meeting to discuss the charge of US aggression, which led to a rather laughable display by the Chinese Communist government, backing Venezuela's play:
“China supports Venezuela’s request to convene an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told a news conference in Beijing.Guo said China “opposes all forms of unilateral bullying and supports countries in safeguarding their sovereignty and national dignity,” according to the Beijing-based daily Global Times.
Yes, famously; tell it to the Philippines, to say nothing of Taiwan. Tibet and the Uighur have their national aspirations suppressed genocidally, but sure. Still, just because the Chinese government are hypocrites doesn't mean they're not right that the US is engaging in the war crime of aggression here: very likely the administration is committing that crime before our eyes.
To return to the discussion: Blowing up Venezuelan-based cartel smugglers is not necessarily an act of war, since it's aimed at stateless actors not clearly aligned with any government. There is some discussion of whether it is nevertheless a war crime. It might seem strange that an act of non-war could be a war crime, and there's only a narrow path to finding it so, but that's where you end up with 'international law.'
It seems very likely to me that the Trump administration is committing the war crime of aggression by blockading Venezuela; it is certainly already committing acts of war against Venezuela, which means that even absent a declaration we are already at war with Venezuela. That doesn't matter legally, since the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council and will certainly veto any attempt to hold it responsible for doing so.
It merits notice, at least. We should at least speak the truth. These laws aren't really laws, and they're not enforceable, and the institutions that claim the power to enforce them are jokes at best; the diplomacy around it is hypocritical to the point of being ridiculous. Nevertheless, it does look as if the US is committing an act of war that is a war crime against a nation that has not in fact attacked us in any way that would violate the rules.
6 comments:
I'm far from a lawyer, for all that I've written a couple of books in the general matter of law. But I've never found anything in law, domestic or international, that defines act or acts of war. The only thing I've found that even comes close is Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, of some 265-ish years ago. And he only peripherally approached such a definition. In any event, that's not a legally binding document, nor was it at the time.
Perhaps someone of those who cry a violation of "laws of war" can cite the statute or international law that defines the law of war being violated. Or better, cite the specific law or laws of war being violated.
Nor am I aware of any blockade of Venezuela. I am aware of Trump's order of a naval blockade of already sanctioned--and only of sanctioned--oil tankers. Unsanctioned oil tankers, other shipping carrying legitimate cargo, aircraft, etc are free to come and go as they wish.
Trump's moves may or may not be sound politics or sound security measures, but so far they are not illegal.
Eric Hines
This is old enough to be common law, in the international sense. However, it is treated in the 1856 Declaration Respecting Maritime Law, which explicitly governs acts of war at sea. Blockades are often legal. Other acts, like privateering, were made illegal.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/paris-decl-1856/declaration?activeTab=
The Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law has no relevance here; neither the US nor Venezuela are signatories. That the US has, from time to time, adhered to many of the principles also is of no consequence; we did so at convenience, not obligation.
And, again, the US is engaging in no blockade.
Huntsman, has another take on the matter here: https://x.com/maphumanintent/status/2001293585208025357?s=20
Eric Hines
I know Huntsman, he's a very smart young man with a strong background in logistics.
Nevertheless, that a blockade is an act of war is true. That there's no applicable international law is also true -- it's a joke, as I said in the OP. So sure, we didn't sign that particular treaty; but the treaty didn't aim at establishing what was and wasn't an act of war. It sought to make agreements about acts of war. Everyone understood this was one, and so if they were going to write about acts of war in the maritime space, they should talk about blockades.
There's not a viable court that can do anything about it one way or the other, so there's no reason to try to build a legal defense or look for technicalities that can be defended towards that end. I just would like to speak the truth about what's happening. Blockades aren't always war crimes; they are always acts of war. In The Three Musketeers, which is a work of fiction from 1844 (about ten years before the treaty) just a declaration cutting of shipping between France and England and closing the ports is taken as a declaration of war. If you threw up a naval blockade to prevent ships from entering enemy ports, that's well beyond that.
To say that the US is not engaging in a blockade because they are allowing some shipping through is, likewise, to ignore what the word has always meant. The Paris declaration allows for quite a bit of shipping to proceed even in a legitimate blockade; you have to allow neutral ships, for example, although you can seize contraband off of them. (This is what the naval blockade of the South looked like in the Civil War as well; a British ship might be stopped by the US Navy, but they would only arrest Confederates aboard and seize cotton or other goods coming from the Confederacy headed for UK ports. That's how Sidney Lanier ended up in prison, contracting the disease that killed him: He refused to don a British uniform and evade capture under false pretenses, an act of honor that cost him his life eventually, and all humanity a talented poet and musician before his time.)
In addition, the President’s remarks make very clear that he intends to use the “Armada” surrounding Venezuela to extract concessions from the nation, especially oil field based ones. That demand clarifies beyond doubt that this is an act of war; he’s not trying to purchase or negotiate for the oil, he’s demanding it based on this deployment of an Armada of warships. I don’t even know a euphemism that would cover such a bald-faced action. I can’t see what else one could call it.
On reflection, I want to clarify that when I say "I know Huntsman," I don't mean that I know of him. He was a Senior Fellow of the Security Studies Group, a fellowship I obtained for him based on my strong impression of his intelligence and experience. I like the guy. I understand the point he's making, but for my money it's to the side.
We know that the President intends a blockade -- he said so, "a total blockade." We know he intends this as an act of war, because he declared that he intends to use the Armada to secure territorial/mineral concessions from a sovereign nation without their consent by main force. That is definitely war, not some sort of police action about oil smuggling by stateless ships.
I also know the adage that we are supposed to take President Trump "seriously, but not literally." But I can't see any way of even taking him seriously that doesn't entail the conclusion that we are at war with Venezuela.
I leave open the question of whether this does or doesn't constitute the war crime of aggression. I think there's a very good chance that it does. That doesn't really mean anything, because international law is an unenforceable joke. All the same, it ought to be said honestly and openly; and whatever its consequences are, accepted and dealt with.
Post a Comment