Acts of War and War Crimes

The field that likes to call itself "international law" has rules that are functionally guidelines ignored by the powerful. It has rules even if it lacks any power to enforce them on anyone. This makes them a laughingstock, but they seem devoted to the project even if it never goes anywhere. (One might think of the devotees of Esperanto as a world language on similar terms.) 

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.