U.S. intervention in Venezuela: Experts examine UN limits

Some international relations experts have examined the limits of UN authority in addressing U.S. interventions in Venezuela, citing veto powers and international law constraints.

They spoke at a roundtable on issues arising from the U.S. intervention in Venezuela.

The event was hosted by the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) on Tuesday in Lagos.

Prof. Remi Ajibewa, a former Director of Political Affairs, ECOWAS said the UN lacked sovereign power to independently enforce decisions.

He described the UN as an intergovernmental organisation like ECOWAS and African Union.”

According to him, the UN has no sovereign power and cannot enforce laws without the consent of its member-states.

He said that real decision-making authority resided with UN member-states, particularly the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the U.S.

Ajibewa, however, faulted claims that the UN was irrelevant, saying that it remained effective when major powers cooperated.

“This is not to say that the UN is powerless or a toothless bulldog.

“The UN is effective when major powers cooperate, but limited when veto powers or lack of state consent prevents enforcement,” he said.

He said that while the UN could condemn actions, investigate situations, mediate disputes and apply political pressure, it could not realistically enforce collective action against the U.S. due to its veto power.

He linked recurring global tensions to governance failures, noting that actions against citizens’ welfare often fuelled international crises.

“As long as we see leaders that are going against what is essentially the welfare of their people, there is tendency that we see more of these discussions and issues in the international system,” he said.

Dr Rita Agu, Senior Research Fellow at NIIA, anchored her contribution on international law, citing Article 2(7) of the UN Charter and customary law, which prohibit interventions in the domestic affairs of states.

“Military invasion or arrest aimed at removing Venezuela’s leadership constitutes direct intervention and unlawful interference in political independence.”

“The abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife constitutes unlawful intervention and violation of diplomatic and human rights protections.”

She added that arrests carried out within another state without its consent violated territorial sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention.

“International law permits cross-border enforcement only where consent is given, or a binding international mandate exists,” she said.

Agu urged the international community to reaffirm core legal principles in addressing matters arising from U.S. actions in Venezuela.

“There should be a reaffirmation of the prohibition of use of force, and absolute respect for the Head of State office.

“There should be a shift from unilateral enforcement to multilateral legal mechanisms and prohibition of extra-territorial arrest operations,” Agu said.