International Law Is Holding Democracies Back

In the early hours of January 3, the United States armed forces executed an astounding operation. American air, land, and sea units destroyed Venezuela’s air defenses, sent in Special Forces that took out President Nicolás Maduro’s security team, and brought the dictator and his wife back to the U.S. for trial. But rather than applaud the removal of an illegitimate dictator and his wife, many foreign leaders quickly condemned the snatch-and-grab.

If critics correctly argue that the attack on Venezuela violates international law, they have unintentionally revealed that international law—not the United States—must change. Removing Maduro was just: The dictatorship has killed tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of Venezuelans, destroyed the country’s economy, and denied the electoral wishes of the Venezuelan people for new leadership. But international law did nothing about this crisis, and countenanced no solution. Because it prevents Western democracies from using force to preempt grave threats from disruptive nations, such as Venezuela or Iran, while posing little obstacle to the designs of our rivals in Beijing or Moscow, international law no longer serves as an instrument of global stability. The United States must lead an effort to reform it to allow more stability-enhancing interventions in the new era of great-power competition that we are entering.

Read the full article at The Atlantic.

‍