International law only works if we’re willing to defend it

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro shows how quickly power can override international law

Interview requests

The U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and the muted or celebratory response it received from Canadian political leaders, should alarm anyone who assumes the postwar global order still constrains raw power.

Many international law experts, including former UN officials and legal scholars, argue the operation may violate international law and could amount to an illegal abduction. I am equally disturbed by how casually this event has been received by political leaders in Canada, especially Pierre Poilievre.

The United States has a long, well-documented history of intervening in foreign governments, sometimes openly and sometimes by proxy. Canada has not always stood apart from those efforts, as seen during the 2004 removal of Haiti’s elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

What makes the current moment different is the broader historical context. The capture of a sitting head of state was described publicly by U.S. officials as a law enforcement action, yet many observers have said they find the explanation unconvincing, particularly given repeated statements by U.S. officials framing Venezuela’s vast oil reserves as a strategic interest.

The language used to rationalize this intervention is familiar. Claims of criminality, national security threats, and moral urgency have long served as justifications for extraordinary actions. Similar rhetoric has also been directed toward U.S. allies, including Canada, in recent years.

While Canada is not Venezuela, the widely held assumption that alliance status alone guarantees sovereignty is a dangerous one. Recent provocative comments by senior U.S. political figures about making Canada the 51st state and other confrontational rhetoric about allied neighbours should give pause to any country that takes the postwar international order for granted.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s response to the Maduro capture reflected this ambiguity. He reiterated that Canada does not recognize the legitimacy of Maduro’s presidency and welcomed “the opportunity for freedom, democracy, peace, and prosperity for the Venezuelan people.” In the same breath, he called on all parties to respect international law.

These statements appear to sit uneasily together. If international law matters, then it cannot be selectively invoked only when convenient. A clear violation does not become acceptable because its target is unpopular.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s reaction was far less cautious. He congratulated the U.S. president on the arrest of what he called a “narco-terrorist and socialist dictator,” celebrated the outcome, and framed the event as a victory for freedom over socialism. Whatever one thinks of Maduro’s regime, this response can reasonably be read as treating international law as an inconvenience rather than a constraint. It also reduces a serious question of sovereignty and global order to an ideological slogan.

That should concern Canadians. The stability and prosperity Canada has enjoyed since the Second World War did not emerge by accident. They were built on institutions, alliances, and legal frameworks designed to prevent powerful states from acting with impunity.

Today, those norms are eroding. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an obvious example. So too is the willingness of Western governments to excuse or defend actions by allies that would be condemned if committed by adversaries. Each exception weakens the rule. Each act of selective enforcement brings us closer to a world in which power, not law, determines outcomes.

Fear, in this context, is not irrational. It is a rational response to the normalization of disorder. History shows that periods in which international rules collapse are not marked by stability or restraint. They are marked by miscalculation, escalation, and suffering on a massive scale.

Those who believe they are immune to the consequences of this chaos should reconsider. The military record of the past quarter-century, combined with rapid advances in weaponry by rival states, suggests that no power is invulnerable. A world without enforceable rules is not a safer one for anyone.

There is still time to change course. The postwar international system, for all its flaws, delivered decades of relative peace and prosperity. Preserving it requires more than vague statements and ideological cheerleading. It requires a renewed commitment to international law, applied consistently and without exception.

That begins with honesty. If fear is what finally forces us to confront the dangers of the current trajectory, then fear may yet serve a useful purpose.

Gerry Chidiac specializes in languages and genocide studies and works with at-risk students. He received an award from the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre for excellence in teaching about the Holocaust.