美国或许能包装审判马杜罗的合法性，却更凸显美式霸权的狂妄与强横

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of the U.S. military operation against Venezuela, termed "Absolute Resolve," highlighting its legality under international and domestic law, and the potential consequences for international order and norms [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][13]. Summary by Sections U.S. Military Action - The U.S. launched a military operation against Venezuela, capturing President Maduro and his wife, which was characterized as a unilateral action without UN approval or congressional authorization [1][2]. - The operation involved direct military engagement, including missile strikes and air assaults, which are seen as violations of the principle of non-violence in international law [3][4]. Legal Violations - The operation is argued to violate international law, particularly the UN Charter, as it lacked Security Council authorization and did not meet the criteria for self-defense [3][4]. - The action is also viewed as a breach of U.S. domestic law, as it bypassed Congress's authority to declare war, raising concerns about executive overreach [5][6][7]. Judicial Authority - The article explores whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction to try Maduro, despite the illegal nature of his capture, citing the Ker-Frisbie principle which allows courts to proceed with trials regardless of the legality of the arrest [8][9]. - It discusses the complexities surrounding Maduro's status as a sitting president, which typically grants him immunity from prosecution under international law, but suggests that U.S. courts may not recognize this immunity due to political considerations [10][11][12]. Broader Implications - The article warns that the U.S. action sets a dangerous precedent, undermining international law and the principle of sovereign equality, potentially leading to a more unstable global order [12][13].