Attorney General Emphasizes Diplomatic Nuance in International Law
Richard Hermer KC, the United Kingdom's Attorney General, has articulated that nations are justified in considering diplomatic relations when deciding whether to publicly address potential breaches of international law. This statement comes amidst scrutiny of the UK government's reaction to a recent United States military operation in Venezuela.
In an interview with The Guardian on January 9, 2026, Lord Hermer, who assumed the role of Attorney General on July 5, 2024, suggested that in a 'complicated and dangerous' global landscape, leaders should be empowered to utilize 'statecraft' to factor in various considerations when determining accountability for allies regarding international law violations. His intervention follows domestic criticism directed at the UK government for its perceived reluctance to explicitly condemn the US action against Venezuela.
Details of the US Operation in Venezuela
The context for the Attorney General's remarks is the significant US military operation, dubbed 'Operation Resolve,' which took place on January 3, 2026. During this operation, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured in Caracas and subsequently transported to the United States to face charges. US President Donald Trump announced the operation, stating the US would 'run the country, until we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition' of power.
The US Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, confirmed that both Maduro and Flores had been indicted in the Southern District of New York on charges including 'Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States.'
International and Domestic Repercussions
The UK government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and with Yvette Cooper as Foreign Secretary, affirmed that it was not involved in 'Operation Resolve.' While supporting a transition of power in Venezuela and deeming Nicolás Maduro an illegitimate leader, both Starmer and Cooper have refrained from explicitly labeling the US military action as a breach of international law. This stance has drawn criticism from some Members of Parliament and senior Labour figures, who advocate for a more robust condemnation.
Internationally, the US operation has sparked considerable debate. Legal experts and several nations, including China, have strongly condemned the action, asserting it constitutes a clear violation of international law, particularly Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Concerns have also been raised regarding the immunity of sitting heads of state from foreign criminal jurisdiction.
5 Comments
Eugene Alta
This is a blatant disregard for international law! The UK's silence is shameful.
Noir Black
The UK government is in a tough spot, balancing its relationship with a key ally against its commitment to international norms. However, by not explicitly condemning the US action, they risk signaling that such breaches are acceptable when committed by powerful friends, potentially weakening the very system they claim to uphold.
Loubianka
So, rules only apply when it's convenient? This sets a dangerous precedent.
Mariposa
Finally, some common sense! We can't alienate allies over every single issue.
Muchacha
Maduro's regime was undoubtedly oppressive, justifying calls for intervention, but the unilateral nature and methods of the US operation raise serious questions about international law and state sovereignty. A legal framework exists for a reason, even for rogue leaders.