<![CDATA[SAIL: The Americas]]>https://www.learnsail.org/s/the-americashttps://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!nwnb!,w_256,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F2f97e731-0b4e-4765-a93d-bb37d12386ae_667x667.pngSAIL: The Americashttps://www.learnsail.org/s/the-americasSubstackFri, 07 Aug 2026 06:43:15 GMT<![CDATA[3 Ways the Cuban Situation Violates International Law (in 2 minutes)]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/3-ways-the-cuban-situation-violateshttps://www.learnsail.org/p/3-ways-the-cuban-situation-violatesTue, 17 Feb 2026 08:01:51 GMT

In January 2026, Trump signed an executive order declaring a “national emergency” over Cuba’s government.

He said Cuba poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. security and foreign policy.

The order aims to block Cuba’s access to oil by threatening tariffs on any country that sells or provides oil to it, pressuring them to stop.

Subscribe now

Here are 3 ways this violates international law:

  1. Violation of non‑intervention and sovereignty

The order’s goal is to cut off Cuba’s fuel and economic lifelines. By making daily life harder, the U.S. hopes to pressure Cuba to change its policies… or even its leadership.

That’s interference in Cuba’s internal affairs.

Political systems, leadership, and economic decisions belong to the country itself.

It also interferes with other countries. By threatening tariffs, the U.S. tries to control their trade and foreign policy.

International law forbids this kind of interference (Article 2(7) UN Charter).

The UN Security Council can’t do much because of the U.S. veto, but impacted countries (e.g. Mexico) can respond with retaliatory tariffs (that’s actually allowed).

Share

  1. Abuse of tariffs and the “national security” excuse

Tariffs are normally taxes on imports to protect industries or respond to unfair trade.

These tariffs aren’t about that. They’re meant to punish other countries for trading with Cuba, and to scare them into stopping.

This undermines the global trading system. Under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, countries cannot impose arbitrary or punitive tariffs outside agreed limits.

The U.S. will likely argue that the tariffs are justified under Article 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), known as the “national security exception.”

This lets countries take trade actions they think are needed to protect their core security interests.

Subscribe now

But this exception is limited.

It only applies in extreme situations like war or a genuine emergency in international relations.

A president declaring a “national emergency” does not automatically make it one under international law.

The WTO clarified this in the Russia – Traffic in Transit case (2019).

It also ruled that national security cannot be used as an excuse to get around trade rules (para. 7.133).

Affected countries could challenge these tariffs at the WTO, just like Nicaragua did against the U.S. in 1985.

Share

  1. Violating the Cuban people’s human rights

The U.S. says the measures support Cubans and promote democracy and human rights.

But in practice… ordinary Cubans are the ones suffering.

Fuel shortages hit hospitals, electricity, water, food production, and transport. When energy stops, basic services collapse.

This directly harms fundamental human rights: the right to food, healthcare, dignity, and an adequate standard of living.

Cuba has raised the issue at the UN General Assembly and UN human rights bodies have spoken up.

While this won’t instantly lift sanctions, it helps protect civilians and amplifies international pressure.

We’re almost at 1,000 SAIL readers; thank you! If you like SAIL, share it!

Share

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Leave a comment

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]><![CDATA[What happens if Trump invades Greenland? (In 2 minutes)]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenlandhttps://www.learnsail.org/p/what-happens-if-trump-invades-greenlandMon, 12 Jan 2026 09:01:53 GMT

  1. Who does Greenland belong to?

Denmark.

Greenland is self-governing, meaning it runs its own internal affairs (like education, health, and natural resources), but it is not a sovereign state.

Denmark retains control over defense, currency, and foreign policy, and is internationally recognized as the sovereign state.

Subscribe now

  1. But Trump said “The fact [Denmark] had a boat land there 500 years ago does not mean they own the land.” Is that true?

Partly, but misleading.

It’s true that discovery (i.e. a boat landing there) alone has never been sufficient to establish sovereignty under international law.

But that’s not how Denmark got Greenland.

Denmark ran the place for a long time (making laws, administering it, policing it, managing trade, and handling its foreign affairs).

The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) confirmed its ownership in 1933, and the U.S. had already accepted it in 1916.

  1. Can Trump legally buy Greenland?

Yes, but only if both Denmark and the Greenlanders agree.

Share

Denmark must agree:

Under international law, territory can be transferred by cession: a treaty between countries that often involves payment (like a sale agreement).

In this case, it would require an agreement between the U.S. and Denmark.

The U.S. has done this before: Louisiana (1803), Alaska (1867), and the Danish West Indies (1917).

Greenlanders must agree:

Under international law, people have a right to self-determination, meaning they get to decide their own future.

The International Court of Justice (succeeding the PCIJ) has confirmed this: in 2019 it decided the UK couldn’t take the Chagos Islands from Mauritius without the people’s consent.

Greenlanders have already said they don’t want to join the U.S., so any sale without their approval would likely be illegal.

  1. Can Trump force Denmark to sell Greenland?

No.

Any treaty signed under coercion is invalid under international law.

Subscribe now

  1. Can Trump pay the Greenlanders to agree?

No.

The Greenlanders’ right to self-determination must be exercised freely, without coercion or inducement.

Paying people to change their political will would violate this right.

  1. Can Trump invade Greenland?

No.

Use of force is prohibited, except in self-defense or with UN Security Council approval. Neither applies here.

  1. What if he tried anyway?

That would be illegal annexation: a type of use of force involving taking another country’s land.

Modern international law forbids it.

Share

  1. What would NATO do?

Both Denmark and the U.S. are NATO members, but NATO was never designed for one member to attack another. It lacks enforcement mechanisms against member aggression and can’t kick a member out.

NATO could call consultations under Article 4 and declare the U.S. action a treaty violation, but unified military action would be impossible.

But Denmark has the right to self-defense under the UN Charter, and other countries could support Denmark with troops, aid, or sanctions, even if NATO as a whole doesn’t act.

European states would likely reorganise their own defense arrangements, and the U.S. would face massive political and legal isolation.

No country could legally recognise the U.S.’s illegal annexation of Greenland.

Drop a like if you found this helpful!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]><![CDATA[Venezuela II: Answering Your Top International Law Questions After the Maduro Capture (in 3 minutes)]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/venezuela-ii-answering-your-top-internationalhttps://www.learnsail.org/p/venezuela-ii-answering-your-top-internationalThu, 08 Jan 2026 09:02:04 GMT

Hello, old and new subscribers! Thanks for the love on my last explainer on Venezuela!

I got quite a few follow up questions, so here’s another simple breakdown.

Subscribe now

I. RESPONDING TO U.S. LAW ARGUMENTS

  1. “But the Monroe Doctrine says it’s okay to control Venezuela.”

Nope.

It was a 19th-century U.S. policy telling European countries not to mess with countries in the Americas.

It later got stretched into the idea that Latin America is the U.S.’s backyard.

But it’s not law.

Plus, modern international law is all about letting each country make its own choices and not using force to run someone else’s country.

  1. “But U.S. law says it’s okay to capture Maduro.”

Yes, a U.S. court started a criminal case accusing Maduro of sending drugs into the U.S. It said if he’s brought to the U.S., the trial can go forward.

Yes, the 1989 Barr Memo says the U.S. President can order the FBI to make arrests in other countries, even if it breaks international law.

And yes, the US Department of Justice says the President can use the military to protect federal agencies and workers while they’re doing their jobs.

So yes, it might be considered legal under U.S. law.

But that doesn’t make it legal under international law.

A very clear rule under international law is that a country can’t say “our domestic law lets us do this” as a defense for breaking international law (Article 27).

The U.S. still has international responsibility for its actions.

Share

  1. “But the U.S. did this to Noriega (Panama) in 1989!”

Sure, the U.S. invaded Panama and brought Manuel Noriega to trial.

But that was illegal under international law too, for the same reasons as Venezuela.

Just because it happened before, doesn’t make it legal the second time.

  1. “But there’s a fair legal process going on in New York.”

Yes, under U.S. law, someone can be prosecuted even if they were brought to the U.S. unlawfully (!).

But that doesn’t erase the international law violations (see above).

  1. “Who cares about international law; the U.S. is the most powerful country?”

That doesn’t give the U.S. a free pass under international law.

No one is above the law.

Thinking that way has led to some of the worst atrocities in history and made the world worse off. Do better.

Subscribe now

II. THE TRIAL AND DETENTION IN NEW YORK

  1. Delcy Rodríguez has taken over, so what about Maduro’s immunity under international law?

If Venezuela still says Maduro is President, then he can claim presidential immunity under international law.

If not, immunity disappears.

Former Presidents have limited immunity only for things their job required them to do.

But drug trafficking or corruption aren’t part of the job, so immunity won’t protect him anyway.

  1. Will the New York court recognise his immunity under international law?

No. It will only apply U.S. law.

  1. So will the court recognise his immunity under U.S. law?

No.

Under U.S. law, a sitting head of state is generally protected from prosecution, but only if the U.S. actually recognizes them as that leader.

The U.S. does not recognise Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president.

So the court is likely to reject an immunity claim and let the trial go ahead.

Share

III. THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

  1. Can the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecute Trump for war crimes?

Yes.

(Not for the crime of aggression, as covered in my last post).

Under international law, a war exists as soon as one country attacks another, even if no war is formally declared and even if the U.S. says “this isn’t a war.”

Possible war crimes: Unlawful detention, taking hostages, forcibly moving or deporting civilians.

(That said, this would be extremely risky! Trump has already sanctioned ICC judges and under U.S. law, he can invade The Hague if the ICC does this. (Not a joke.))

  1. Can the ICC try Maduro for crimes?

Yes.

It’s been investigating crimes committed in Venezuela under the Maduro regime since 2018.

It could have issued an arrest warrant for Maduro, obligating ICC States Parties to arrest and surrender him to The Hague in accordance with international law.

  1. What can the International Court of Justice (ICJ) do here?

Nothing.

The ICJ settles disputes between countries, but it can only act if both sides agree. The U.S. and Venezuela haven’t agreed.

  1. What about the UN Security Council or CELAC?

Not much.

It can hold meetings and let countries make speeches, like it did on Monday, 5 January.

But the U.S. is a permanent member with veto power, blocking any formal condemnation or action.

CELAC doesn’t share a common position — some countries (like Cuba) condemn Trump’s move, while others (like Argentina) don’t.

IV. WHAT’S NEXT?

Possibly attacked Greenland, Cuba, Colombia…

Controlling Venezuelan oil exports…

Let me know which of these you want explained next!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]><![CDATA[The US Capture of Venezuela’s Maduro: A 3-Minute International Law Breakdown]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/the-us-capture-of-venezuelas-madurohttps://www.learnsail.org/p/the-us-capture-of-venezuelas-maduroSun, 04 Jan 2026 09:02:25 GMT

Trump announced that the US has launched strikes in Venezuela and captured Maduro and his wife.

This raises some of the clearest violations of international law we’ve seen in decades!

Subscribe now

I. THE LEGALITY OF US INTERVENTION

  1. Are the strikes on Venezuela legal?

No. Absolutely not.

As I explained in another post, under international law, the use of force is prohibited unless one of two narrow exceptions applies: Self-defence (Article 51), or authorisation by the UN Security Council.

Neither applies here.

Venezuela has not attacked the US nor was it about to, and there is no Security Council mandate. That alone makes the strikes unlawful.

  1. Is intervening to remove Maduro or “take over” Venezuela legal?

Also no.

International law strictly prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of another state, including deciding who governs it (Article 2(7) UN Charter).

Whether Maduro is unpopular, oppressive, or illegitimate does not give another state the right to impose regime change by force.

One can believe Maduro should not be leading Venezuela and still recognise that a US attack is illegal.

Share

  1. “But the US has good motives!”

The following common arguments don’t change the law:

“But Maduro is illegitimate / authoritarian”:

Even if true, illegitimacy does not legalise invasion. You cannot uphold international law by violating it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

“But Maduro is pushing drugs into the US / narco-trafficking”:

(JD Vance and Marco Rubio have both claimed this.)

But as I explained in a previous post, there is no such thing as a lawful “war on drugs” across borders that would justify killing traffickers.

Similarly, drug trafficking does not justify military force against another state.

“But Maduro is committing human rights violations in Venezuela”:

Some states have argued that it is lawful to use force in another country to protect the population from serious human rights abuses by its own government.

However, this practice (unilateral humanitarian intervention) is not generally recognised as lawful under international law.

In other words, there is no general exception allowing states to use force to enforce human rights in another country.

“But Venezuela has oil”:

If anything, this makes the violation worse. Strategic or economic motives never justify the use of force.

Subscribe now

  1. What about capturing Maduro and his wife?

Also illegal.

First, you can’t just grab people in another country without that country’s permission.

Doing so is considered an illegal extraterritorial arrest under international law.

Even if a country’s laws apply beyond its borders in some cases, actually going into another country to arrest or detain someone is not allowed… unless that country agrees or the UN Security Council gives permission.

Neither of those applies here.

Second, this also breaks international human rights law.

Kidnapping someone from another country without following proper legal procedures is exactly that: an illegal and unfair deprivation of their freedom (see here, Article 9).

II. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

  1. Can Maduro be tried in New York?

No.

If we consider that Maduro is still President following his capture, then he enjoys personal immunity from prosecution before foreign (i.e. US) courts.

(This applies even if another state claims he is “not legitimate” - as French courts confirmed when trying Syria’s Assad).

Some might argue that Maduro is technically no longer President following his capture. But reading the Venezuelan constitution (Articles 233-234), this isn’t very clear.

Share

  1. Can the US govern Venezuela during its “transition phase”?

No.

The practice of one state administering another is largely a thing of the past, dating back to when the UN organized mandates and trusteeships after the two world wars.

Today, there is no legal basis for this, especially unilaterally.

III. ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONSEQUENCES

  1. Can Trump be tried by the International Criminal Court for aggression (ICC)?

No.

This unprovoked attack / use of force is also called an act of aggression.

This is a crime under international law.

The ICC can prosecute for the crime of aggression.

But when doing so, the ICC cannot go after people from countries that haven’t joined it, like the US.

That’s the case even if that country (i.e., the US) commits acts of aggression in a country that is a member, like Venezuela.

  1. What should countries be doing?

At the very least, they should be clearly condemning the US move! (See, e.g., Norway’s statement.)

Vague statements of “concern” or even support for it (looking at you, Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron and others!) are not good enough.

If we accept a world with no regard for international law and where “might makes right”, this won’t stop here: Russia will do the same with Ukraine, China with Taiwan, and the US in Greenland and beyond!

(In fact, Trump has already said that Cuba is next on its list. Will the world applaud that too?)

Global stability can only be maintained when states insist on applying international law consistently — even when it’s (politically) inconvenient.

What do you make of this saga? Comments are open!

Leave a comment

Hit the ‘Like’ button if you found this post useful!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]><![CDATA[Why U.S. Missile Strikes on ISIS in Nigeria Don’t Violate International Law (in 2 minutes)]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/why-us-missile-strikes-on-isis-inhttps://www.learnsail.org/p/why-us-missile-strikes-on-isis-inMon, 29 Dec 2025 09:02:11 GMT

The U.S. just delivered a Christmas gift to Nigeria, launching missile strikes against Islamic State (i.e., IS/ ISIS/ ISIL/ Daesh) terrorists operating in the northwest.

According to Trump, the aim of the strikes were to stop the killings of Nigerian Christians - although the Nigerian government says the strikes were ‘not intended to protect any specific religions’.

I know what you’re thinking: “another illegal U.S. use of force?”

Actually, no. (I know, shocker.)

Let’s break it down, simply.

Subscribe now

  1. This is a use of force

There’s no getting around this part.

Firing missiles into another country is obviously a use of force under international law.

This is prohibited, unless an exception applies.

  1. The key exception is consent

The exceptions most people immediately think of are self-defence or UN Security Council authorisation.

But there’s another often overlooked one: Consent.

If the government of Nigeria consented to U.S. strikes on its territory, then the use of force is not unlawful.

And in this case, Nigeria did more than merely consent. According to public reporting, the operation was jointly planned and coordinated by the US and Nigeria!

Under international law, consent makes the use of force lawful because the country where it happens has agreed to it.

Share

  1. When is consent legally valid?

For consent to be legal, several conditions must be met:

First, it must come from the legitimate government of Nigeria. Check.

Second, it must be freely given. Check - there’s no indication of coercion.

Third, the operation has to stick to what Nigeria actually agreed to, i.e., only going after IS fighters, staying on Nigerian soil, and following any limits set on timing, location, or how the strikes are carried out.

Public statements by the Nigerian government suggest that the operation stayed within the agreed framework.

  1. But can the US use force against a group, not a state?

Yes.

International law traditionally focused on one country using force against another country.

But modern practice has long accepted that force may be used against non-state armed groups operating within another country.

This is now routine in counter-terrorism operations worldwide.

So the fact that the targets were ISIS fighters, rather than Nigeria itself, is not legally controversial.

  1. But… ‘legal’ doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’!

Consent cannot justify the US/Nigeria committing international crimes to reach those ends.

In practice, that means the strikes must respect basic rules like targeting only fighters and avoiding excessive harm to civilians.

Nigeria’s human rights obligations towards its population also continue. So it must do everything to protect its civilians.

Reports indicate that the attacks were pretty precise.

If that’s correct, then, based on what we know, the strikes are lawful under international law.

The U.S. has announced that more strikes are coming. Gulp! As usual, SAIL will be analysing events as they unfold.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]><![CDATA[Unpacking the Law Behind the Trump-South Africa Drama in 2 Minutes]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/unpacking-the-law-behind-the-trumphttps://www.learnsail.org/p/unpacking-the-law-behind-the-trumpThu, 11 Dec 2025 09:02:00 GMT

Did you hear? Trump recently accused the South African government of carrying out a white genocide against Afrikaner farmers.

He also announced special asylum to Afrikaners, called for a boycott of the G20 in Johannesburg and said he will ban President Ramaphosa from the next G20 in the US.

There’s a lot of international law to unpack here, so let’s break it down:

Subscribe now

  1. Is there a ‘white genocide’ going on?

No.

Under international law, genocide means trying to wipe out a whole group of people because of their nationality, race, ethnicity, or religion.

That includes killing people, seriously harming them, making life unlivable, blocking births, or taking children away (here, under Article 2).

Farm attacks in South Africa are real and awful: For decades, criminals have been targeting farmers, committing violent crimes such as assault, murder, rape, and robbery.

Ramaphosa also passed a law letting the government take land, mostly owned by Afrikaners, without paying for it, if it’s considered ‘just and equitable’ and in the public interest.

Assessing genocide is super complex and I realise I have 2 minutes, but here’s my take:

To legally prove genocide, you need intent to destroy the group. In past confirmed genocides (the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebrenica), courts found intent through things like government orders, speeches urging destruction, and testimony showing perpetrators knew exactly what they were doing.

Here, there just isn’t evidence of that kind of intent.

Land expropriation hits Afrikaners economically, but that alone doesn’t equal genocide.

A few national inquiries (e.g., here) have backed this up and found that the killings are explained by South Africa having a major crime problem which affects people of all races.

Share

  1. Can Trump give Afrikaners privileged asylum?

Nope.

Trump announced that the US will admit only 7500 refugees in 2026 – and mostly Afrikaners.

The US is not a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which was adopted largely in response to the Holocaust to protect refugees fleeing Europe before 1951.

But the US is a party to the 1967 Protocol, which is basically an expanded version of the Refugee Convention – the same rules, but applicable to refugees worldwide and after 1951.

Even if Afrikaners do qualify as refugees (fleeing ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’), the U.S. still can’t pick and choose based on race or ethnicity.

It can set a cap, and it can prioritise specific countries, but it cannot say “only white refugees from South Africa.”

Share

  1. Can Trump ban South African’s President from the 2026 G20 in the U.S.?

Also no (you’re used to this answer by now, right?).

When you host a big multilateral summit, you don’t get to hand-pick who attends.

Under international diplomatic law (here), the host has to respect visiting heads of state, give them safe passage, and ensure freedom of movement (if you’re feeling nerdy, check out Articles 29, 40 and 26).

Blocking Ramaphosa would violate those obligations and could cause other G20 members to boycott or move the summit (already a live discussion!).

  1. Conclusion

Trump’s hostility towards South Africa has grown since South Africa sued Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide in Gaza.

Ramaphosa has said this tiff is threatening South Africa’s sovereignty.

But legally at least, none of his threats hold much water.

Stay tuned for the next round of international law drama, right here on SAIL!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]><![CDATA[When Your Friend Asks Whether Trump can Block Venezuela’s Airspace, Here is Your 1 Minute Answer]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/when-your-friend-asks-whether-trumphttps://www.learnsail.org/p/when-your-friend-asks-whether-trumpMon, 01 Dec 2025 09:02:07 GMT

He’s at it again! (You’ve got to love this man for giving the SAIL Blog so much material.)

Trump just announced: “To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP”.

But…

  1. The U.S. can’t unilaterally close the airspace of another country under international law

Under Article 1 of the Chicago Convention (1944), “Every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.”

Share

That means only Venezuela can close or regulate Venezuelan airspace.

The U.S. can only restrict U.S. aircrafts to avoid Venezuelan airspace as it controls its own aviation operators.

The only situation where another country could do this is if Trump went through the United Nations Security Council and the Council established a no-fly zone over Venezuela, similar to those imposed over Libya in 2011.

So this is simply advice for others not to fly there. Legally speaking, the U.S. cannot actually close that airspace.

  1. The U.S. can’t threaten to use force against Venezuela

Don’s announcement threatens the possibility of military conflict inside Venezuela.

This is also illegal, folks (are you seeing a pattern?).

Subscribe now

Article 2(4) UN Charter says that UN Members (which includes the U.S.) shall refrain from even threatening the use of force.

And the International Court of Justice has made clear that when the use of force would be illegal, a threat to use that force is also illegal (Nuclear Weapons, para. 246).

Since I have already shown that the use of force here would be illegal, any corresponding threats by Trump would be illegal as well.

So, what now?

Venezuela’s airspace looks pretty empty right now.

And I get it; no country wants to risk its aircraft being attacked if a conflict is about to break out.

But if countries placed a higher priority on respecting international law (or read the SAIL Blog 😄), they would collectively push back against the U.S. and say, “What you are doing is illegal, and we will proceed to ignore it.”

The rules are there, people! We just have to follow them.

What do you think about the U.S.-Venezuela situation? Comment below!

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]><![CDATA[What Happens if the U.S. Attacks Venezuela? (In 2 minutes)]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/what-happens-if-the-us-attacks-venezuelahttps://www.learnsail.org/p/what-happens-if-the-us-attacks-venezuelaFri, 14 Nov 2025 07:02:32 GMT

Tensions are high: The world’s largest U.S. aircraft carrier has just arrived in the Caribbean, and Venezuela is mobilizing a large number of troops. Could a U.S. attack be on the horizon? Although President Trump denies it, it’s worth taking a clear look at what international law actually says about such a move — just in case.

Would a U.S. attack on Venezuela be justified under international law?

You guessed it: Nope.

There are two possible official justifications: self-defence and authorisation from the UN Security Council.

Self-defence? No — there’s no ongoing or imminent attack that would justify a U.S. military response.

UN Security Council authorisation? Also no — the UN has not approved any such action.

There’s one more — and highly controversial — justification: humanitarian intervention. This refers to a situation in which one country (State A) uses military force inside another country (State B) without the consent of State B or the United Nations, claiming the goal is to protect civilians from large-scale atrocities committed by State B itself. In this case, the U.S.’s argument would be that it is protecting Venezuelans from Maduro’s government, which has suppressed political opposition and committed serious human rights violations.

Some argue humanitarian intervention is gaining acceptance under international law based on ‘state practice’ — i.e., what countries actually do, even if it’s not formally in treaties. Examples often cited include NATO’s intervention in Kosovo (1999) and more recently, Russia’s claimed justification for invading Ukraine (2022).

But here’s the thing: most countries and legal experts don’t agree that humanitarian intervention without UN approval is lawful. There isn’t enough consistent practice or agreement to make it a legitimate rule under international law.

So, in this case, it’s not a valid justification.

What now?

Venezuela’s issues should be addressed within the framework of the law. The International Criminal Court already has an open investigation into crimes committed there, and a United Nations Fact-Finding Mission has gathered (and continues to gather) evidence that can support future prosecutions.

If the U.S. were to invade, Venezuela wouldn’t be protected by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance — basically Latin America’s version of NATO — because it’s no longer a member (since 2013). The U.S. is still in, and under the treaty, other member countries would have been expected to step in to prevent or stop a conflict between two American states (Article 7).

Many Latin Americans dislike Maduro, but they also strongly oppose U.S. military interventions — so even if they wouldn’t be required to defend Venezuela, they’d possibly push back against a Trump-led invasion. In response, they could block U.S. planes or ships from using their ports, ask the United Nations to hold an emergency meeting and/or encourage global condemnation. Within the U.S., Congress could also take steps to challenge or limit U.S. military action and push to end any conflict in Venezuela.

But let’s hope diplomacy prevails before it comes to that!

Share

Subscribe now

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Leave a comment

]]><![CDATA[Can Mamdani Arrest Netanyahu in New York? (In 2 minutes)]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/the-mamdani-moment-could-a-nyc-mayor-shape-international-laws-reachhttps://www.learnsail.org/p/the-mamdani-moment-could-a-nyc-mayor-shape-international-laws-reachWed, 05 Nov 2025 10:19:00 GMTZohran Mamdani has been elected Mayor of New York City.

During his campaign, he made headlines (e.g., here, here and here) by declaring that he would order the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if the latter were ever to set foot in New York.

This statement carries political weight, as the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu in 2024.

The ICC is a permanent international tribunal based in The Hague, created by the Rome Statute, a treaty with 125 state parties (i.e., countries that have agreed to be bound by its terms).

It prosecutes individuals accused of the gravest international crimes — including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

An arrest warrant from the ICC means that any state party to the Rome Statute is legally obligated to detain and transfer the named individual to The Hague if that person enters its territory (see Rome Statute, Article 89(1)).

Netanyahu travels to New York every year to address the United Nations General Assembly (check out his last intervention here, where many diplomats left the room in protest), so the scenario isn’t far-fetched.

But could Mayor Mamdani actually have him arrested?

… Probably not.

The U.S. is not a state party to the Rome Statute (Bill Clinton signed it on 31 Dec 2000 to show the U.S. wanted to join, but the country never completed the official approval process to make it legally binding).

U.S. officials aren’t legally required to enforce ICC arrest warrants; cooperation would be a political choice, not a legal duty.

But even if Mayor Mamdani wanted to arrest Netanyahu, U.S. federal authorities would probably step in to prevent it, on at least two grounds. 

First, they’d say (and I’m no expert in U.S. law) that foreign relations and international law are federal responsibilities (see e.g., U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 and Article II Sections 2 & 3).

So, any ICC-related arrest would need federal law enforcement and government approval, not a city or state official.

They’d probably also bring up the Hague Invasion Act, which ensures that ‘‘covered allied persons’’ (including working on behalf of Israel – see section 15(3)) are prohibited from arrest, detention, prosecution, or imprisonment by or on behalf of the ICC (yes, this is real!). 

Still, we could use more world leaders with Mayor Mamdani’s courage and commitment to uphold international law!

Share

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Subscribe now

]]><![CDATA[Are U.S. Strikes on Drug Boats Legal Under International Law? (In 2 minutes)]]>https://www.learnsail.org/p/are-u-s-strikes-on-drug-boats-legal-under-international-lawhttps://www.learnsail.org/p/are-u-s-strikes-on-drug-boats-legal-under-international-lawMon, 03 Nov 2025 11:06:24 GMT

Hey SAILers!

The United States has carried out strikes on boats allegedly carrying drugs, arguing that it is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels. This justification relies on the Bush administration’s post-9/11 “War on Terror” doctrine.

To assess whether these strikes are legal under international law, we need to ask two questions:

  1. Is the use of force itself legal here? (i.e., When can a country launch an attack on a group?)

  2. Could they be justified as part of a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between a state and an armed group — here, the drug cartels?

1. Is the U.S. Use of Force Legal?

No.
Under the UN Charter, states cannot use force (Article 2(4)) except:
a) under UN Security Council authorization (Chapter VII), or
c) in self-defense (Article 51).

The Security Council has not authorized this, and drug trafficking, even if harmful, does not amount to an “armed attack” that would justify self-defense under Article 51.

Therefore, the strikes are not lawful under the rules on the use of force.

Share

2. Could It Be Legal as a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) with Drug Cartels?

[International law separates conflicts between countries (‘international armed conflicts’) from those between a country and an armed group (‘non-international armed conflicts’), since different sets of rules apply to each.]

The answer to this question is no, for two reasons.

First, organization.

For a NIAC to exist, the non-state group must be organized (see here, at 456-78) — with a clear command structure and the capacity to conduct sustained military operations. Drug cartels are criminal networks, not belligerent armed groups, and lack the military organization required under international law.

Second, intensity.

The violence must be sustained and intense, not a series of isolated criminal acts (see here, at 562). Drug-related violence, while severe, remains sporadic and criminal in nature, not the kind of continuous armed hostilities that trigger the laws of war.

Because Trump isn’t in a NIAC with drug cartels in the first place, he can’t claim that his strikes form part of a larger or global one. Trump’s argument mirrors President Bush’s post-9/11 expansion of the concept of armed conflict to include a global fight against non-state actors like al-Qaeda, not confined to one battlefield. That “global war” idea allowed the U.S. to apply the laws of war to terrorist groups worldwide — but it was not widely accepted as a lawful NIAC under international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and most governments rejected this interpretation. So it wouldn’t stand here either. 

Conclusion: These strikes are illegal under international law.

Leave a comment

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Thanks for reading Simplified Approach to International Law (SAIL)! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

]]>