Won’t someone please think of the international lawyers?

Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times made an excellent point over the weekend, in response to Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and capture of Nicolás Maduro. ‘So when China launches a special op to seize the president of Taiwan: or Russia tries to do the same for Zelensky – what exactly do we say? You can’t do that, it’s illegal?’

Rachman is spot on. After Trump’s intervention, how can we trust Vladimir Putin’s commitment to the liberal rules-based international order? He might now think about invading Ukraine, or trying to capture Zelensky. Pandora’s Box has been wrenched wide open.

As the Venezuelan invasion attests, there is only one thing worse than a protracted, blood-drenched war: and that’s an illegal war. When I heard about Trump’s intervention, my first thought was not for the Venezuelans. It was for international lawyers. What does this mean for us?

When you have as many degrees as I do, you know that international law has been the only thing keeping the world from barbarism in recent decades. As we all know, there has only been one proper war in Europe – which is basically the world – since the signing of the Atlantic Charter in 1941.

Apparently, NATO used Kosovo’s airspace for humanitarian purposes during the 1990s, but I don’t think that counts. Barack Obama’s 500 or so drone strikes on Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen were clearly carefully designed not to violate the sovereignty of those nations, by striking them only from the sky (which doesn’t require crossing their borders).

We can only imagine how much better the invasion of Iraq could have gone had the US only obtained UN approval beforehand. It would have almost certainly worked out fine. Afghanistan went on a bit long, but it was – basically – legal. Which is why the intervention there was such a staggering success.

Had Trump had the good grace to approach the UN with his proposal to capture Maduro, the world could have voted on it. Russia and China would certainly have seen sense and given it the go-ahead. Maduro could have prepared an army. Then, at the agreed moment, war could have commenced with the backing of the international legal community.

Thousands more may have died, but at least they would have died pursuant to the relevant provisions of international treaties. They would have died lawfully – and that’s what matters most.

The majesty of international law is inarguable. We all know that China’s designs on Taiwan are only being held in check by Beijing’s respect for the hallowed chambers of our international courts. Xi Jinping is said to have a mug emblazoned with the insignia of the International Court of Justice on his desk at all times.

Putin, meanwhile, is said to be so fearful of judgement before the International Criminal Court that he has to keep reminding himself not to go to the countries that actually enforce its arrest warrants. That’s why he must holiday every year in Sochi, rather than Ayia Napa.

International law has maintained a fragile peace across the globe for decades. That has now been shattered, all thanks to Donald Trump.

As a barrister, I have never fought in a war. I have never been asked to capture, alive, the leader of a foreign country, with minimal civilian casualties. There will be cynics out there who argue that lawyers aren’t always the best people to decide when and how military action should be commenced.

To those people, I say this: war without the law is anarchy. It’s like playing Risk, but one player just gets to upend the table at any moment. It’s just not sporting.

That’s the real harm of Trump’s capture of Maduro. All the Venezuelans celebrating the arrest of their corrupt, incompetent and authoritarian former ruler simply do not understand the gravity of the situation. They don’t seem to care at all that Trump has diminished the moral authority of international law across the globe.

What will we say now, when other leaders act contrary to international law? Well, the first thing we could do is draft a legal communiqué to the infringing despot and encourage them to rethink. Such a document could be devastating. Terrifying.

And should you be able to afford it, I am available to assist.

As told to Luke Gittos