“国家元首豁免权”成焦点：美国军事抓捕马杜罗，冲击国际法基本准则

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the legal implications and historical context of the U.S. military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, emphasizing the lack of legal justification for such actions under international law [4][5][6]. Legal Basis of the Operation - The author argues that the U.S. government's legal arguments for the operation lack validity and do not provide a legitimate defense for the military actions taken in Venezuela [6][7]. - Claims of self-defense against drug trafficking, allegedly supported by Maduro, do not hold under international law, as self-defense is traditionally reserved for armed attacks, not drug smuggling [7][8]. Historical Context and Precedents - The article references the historical precedent of U.S. interventions in Latin America, particularly the invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega, highlighting the similarities in justifications used by the U.S. government [12][19]. - The author notes that the invocation of Monroe Doctrine principles by President Trump signals a troubling return to justifications for military intervention in Latin America [18][19]. Implications of Leadership Recognition - The discussion includes the complexities surrounding Maduro's status as a legitimate leader, with the potential for legal challenges in U.S. courts regarding his immunity as a head of state [10][12]. - The article raises concerns about the implications of a U.S. president unilaterally determining the legitimacy of foreign leaders, which could undermine international law and norms [16][17]. Consequences of Military Action - The potential long-term risks for U.S. soldiers involved in the operation are highlighted, contrasting this action with previous, shorter military interventions [19]. - The article suggests that the operation is driven by interests in Venezuelan oil rather than humanitarian concerns, indicating a shift towards using military force for resource acquisition [19][20].