These comments briefly address two international legal issues of concern in the Venezuela crisis: the legality of any party resorting to lethal force or taking action short of lethal force. Turmoil in Venezuela moved to a new, more dangerous level, when in January 2019 the leader of the parliament, Juan Guaidó, claimed to be the legitimate president in place of the incumbent, Nicolás Maduro. A variety of parties have taken and have threatened to take action in the wake of Guaidó’s claim. The news media has reported on three categories of action short of lethal force, including economic sanctions, military assistance, and humanitarian assistance. In the second category, lethal force, two examples are most relevant, the use of force against protesters and others not organized to use armed force, and the use of force by, on behalf of, and against groups that are organized to fight.

Peacekeeping, conceptually, was designed to be traditionally defensive in nature with a neutral, unarmed, multinational force maintaining or monitoring peace. The first major example of a United Nations peacekeeping force dates to the initial Arab-Israeli conflict with the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNSTO), established in May 1948. The peacekeepers were there to observe and maintain the ceasefire and assist in any terms of the armistice agreements following the initial fighting with the partition of the British Mandate in Palestine and the later declaration of the State of Israel. The Security Council Resolution “Instruct[ed] the United Nations Mediator in Palestine, in concert with the Truce Commission, to supervise the observance of the above provisions, and decide[d] that they shall be provided with a sufficient number of military observers.” UNTSO was followed by a variation, the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, which was to observe and report violations of the ceasefire along the contested border. Both of these original UN peacekeeping operations are still in existence after seventy years. This original concept of peacekeeping was based upon the United Nation's principle that the organization would act to prevent conflict between states following the atrocities committed during World War II through its neutrality. However, the term “peacekeeping” is not found anywhere within the United Nations Charter. It is instead inferred under both Chapter VI and Chapter VII powers to resolve disputes.

Does a more powerful and assertive China threaten the universality of international law? Maybe, but not yet clearly so. The answer depends on China's still-emerging positions, on whether a universal system will accommodate China's preferences, and on one's net assessment of China's complex and ambiguous behavior. Any Chinese challenge to universality is national, not regional. There is no coherent Asian international law, and China is not leading its emergence.