Pillage Is Prohibited: Why Control or Sale of Venezuelan Oil by a Foreign Power Risks Individual Criminal Liability Under International Law

 

Pillage Is Prohibited: Why Control or Sale of Venezuelan Oil by a Foreign Power Risks Individual Criminal Liability Under International Law

By Germanico Vaca

Executive Summary

International law draws a bright, non-negotiable line: pillage is prohibited under all circumstances. This prohibition is not aspirational, political, or dependent on power. It is a peremptory norm of customary international humanitarian law, binding on all states and all individuals, including heads of state and senior officials.

Any attempt by officials of a foreign power to appropriate, control, direct, or dispose of Venezuela’s oil for their own state’s benefit, absent lawful sovereign consent and outside narrowly defined sanctions mechanisms consistent with international law, risks constituting pillage, a war crime recognized for more than a century.

This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of law.

---

I. The Rule Is Absolute: Pillage Is Prohibited (Customary International Law – Rule 52)

Rule 52 of customary international humanitarian law states plainly:

“Pillage is prohibited.”

This rule applies in:

• International armed conflicts

• Non-international armed conflicts

• Occupations

• Situations of coercive control tied to armed force or its threat

There is no exception based on:

• Sanctions policy

• Regime change objectives

• Claims of humanitarian intent

• Domestic authorization

• Executive discretion

The rule predates modern international institutions and is among the most settled norms in the law of armed conflict.

---

II. Pillage Is a War Crime With Personal Criminal Liability

The prohibition of pillage is recognized in:

• The Hague Regulations

• The Fourth Geneva Convention

• The Nuremberg Charter

• The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute, pillage constitutes a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Crucially:

• Heads of state do not enjoy immunity

• Cabinet officials do not enjoy immunity

• Civilian officials are fully liable

• Domestic law or authorization provides no defense

This principle was established at Nuremberg and reaffirmed repeatedly since.

---

III. What Constitutes Pillage Under International Law

Pillage is defined as:

The appropriation of property without the consent of the lawful owner, for private or state use, in connection with armed conflict or coercive force.

Key elements:

1. Property belongs to another sovereign or its population

2. The appropriation is without lawful consent

3. The appropriation benefits the foreign power

4. The act is linked to armed conflict, occupation, or coercive force

Natural resources—including oil—are explicitly covered. The law makes no distinction between:

• Cash

• Artifacts

• Grain

• Oil

• Minerals

Oil is property. Its forced extraction or sale is appropriation.

---

IV. “Managing” or “Selling” Another Nation’s Oil Does Not Avoid Criminality

Language does not alter substance.

Calling appropriation:

• “Management”

• “Custodianship”

• “Trusteeship”

• “Temporary control”

• “Protection”

• “Humanitarian administration”

does not change its legal character.

International law looks to facts and effects, not labels. If a foreign power:

• Determines extraction

• Controls distribution

• Directs revenues

• Benefits economically or strategically

Then the act is appropriation.

If done without the free and lawful consent of the recognized sovereign authority of Venezuela, it meets the definition of pillage.

---

V. Sanctions Do Not Authorize Appropriation

Economic sanctions:

• Restrict transactions

• Freeze assets

• Limit trade

They do not authorize:

• Seizure of natural resources

• Sale of another nation’s commodities

• Redirection of sovereign wealth

Sanctions are negative restraints, not positive licenses to take property.

No sanctions regime—unilateral or multilateral—creates a legal right to extract and sell a foreign state’s oil.

---

VI. Constitutional Duty of U.S. Officials

Under the U.S. Constitution:

• Treaties are supreme law of the land

• The Geneva Conventions are binding

• War crimes statutes criminalize pillage

U.S. domestic law incorporates international humanitarian law. Therefore:

• Congress cannot legalize pillage

• The President cannot authorize it

• Orders do not shield subordinates

• “National interest” is not a defense

Officials who knowingly participate risk future prosecution, including under:

• Universal jurisdiction

• International tribunals

• Foreign national courts

History shows such prosecutions often occur years or decades later.

---

VII. The System at Stake: Law or Anarchy

The prohibition of pillage exists for one reason:
If powerful states may seize resources at will, international order collapses.

This is not about Venezuela alone.
It is not about the United States alone.

If this rule is broken:

• Any state may seize another’s resources

• War becomes economically incentivized

• Law yields to force

• Anarchy replaces order

The international system survives only if even the powerful obey the rules.

---

VIII. Conclusion: A Clear Warning

The prohibition of pillage is:

• Settled

• Absolute

• Non-derogable

• Personally binding

Any attempt by foreign officials to control, extract, manage, or sell Venezuelan oil without lawful sovereign consent risks constituting a war crime.

This is not a political argument.
It is not semantic.
It is not theoretical.

It is the law.

And the law does not forget.