Trump said that Venezuela’s new leader, Delcy Rodríguez, would help the United States run Venezuela. She quickly said the opposite.
Trump said Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president and would act as a partner in letting the United States run the country.
“She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again,” he said.
Less than two hours later, Ms. Rodríguez — who was Nicolás Maduro’s vice president — delivered a televised address to Venezuela that made clear she viewed the United States as an illegal invader that must be rejected.
What do you mean allowed? There isn’t actually a world police force that’s going to arrest Trump or anything like that.
International Law is just a bunch of treaties that countries have agreed to follow. Countries don’t agree to treaties that prevent them from doing what they want to do. The reason why this kind of thing doesn’t happen more often is because political stability is preferable for capitalist systems. Trump only cares about the money he makes personally, so he takes bribes and now he’s prioritizing the interests of only the companies that pay him bribes over the economy in general. Global stability is good for the economy, but Trump only cares about personal profit.
Sure they do. The US made a bunch of treaties with Native Americans, then when they wanted to do the prohibited things they just did them anyone and ignored the treaties that they agreed to
Look up Russia’s defence pack with Ukraine.
OK
The US did not agree to and is not subjected to the ICC as far as I know
Sure and the ICJ calls for the arrest of leaders of sovereign countries. The only difference between the ICJ the US is the US has to capability actually arrest world leaders while the ICJ doesn’t. And the fact that a lot of people dislike Putin and Netanyahu, but apparently don’t have a problem with Maduro? Which is kinda weird, but at any rate if what’s considered permissible is based on who you like and who you don’t like, it’s not actually law.
So the ICJ made it permissible to arrest leaders of sovereign countries and now we’re seeing the consequences of the precedent they created.
Personally I think it’s a bad thing to arrest leaders of sovereign countries no matter who they are. It makes diplomacy more difficult and negotiations to end conflicts should be prioritized over ineffectual theatrics. It also allows military action to be whitewashed as laying down justice. If the ICJ can arrest world leaders, why can’t we?
The ICJ should probably be reformed, they’ve lost too much legitimacy and have actually given legitimacy to the actions of authoritarians.
They’ve sanctioned a number of the ICC judges and made their lives difficult just to be dicks.