International Law — Sovereignty, Use of Force & Natural Resources

 

I. International Law — Sovereignty, Use of Force & Natural Resources

By Germanico Vaca

1) UN Charter — Prohibition on Use of Force

Under international law, sovereign states are prohibited from using force against another state except in very narrow exceptions (self-defense or UN Security Council authorization).

• UN Charter Article 2(4): “All Members shall refrain… from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
  This is widely considered customary international law and has been cited by legal experts as breached by unilateral military actions in Venezuela absent consent or Security Council action. Oxfam International+1

2) Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources

General international law recognizes that every state has sovereign rights over its natural resources. That principle was expressly affirmed in a UN General Assembly resolution in 1962 (Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources), meaning no external state can lawfully seize or appropriate another state’s oil or other resources. Al Jazeera

3) Prohibition on Pillage and Appropriation of Resources

Under the Hague Regulations (1907) and customary international humanitarian law:

• Article 28 of the Hague Regulations — “The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.” ICRC Databases

• The Rome Statute of the ICC (International Criminal Court) and historical tribunals (Nuremberg/Tokyo) consider pillage a war crime (unauthorized seizure of property during armed conflict). guide-humanitarian-law.org
  Even beyond formal war, the norm against pillage — especially of natural resources — is strong in both customary international law and treaty law.

4) Law of Armed Conflict (International Humanitarian Law)

If a conflict exists between states, the law of armed conflict governs conduct toward civilians, property, and natural resources. Those frameworks require that:

• Civilian property must be respected.

• Natural resources and civilian infrastructure cannot be appropriated without lawful basis.
  Violations can rise to war crimes under international humanitarian law. guide-humanitarian-law.org

---

II. U.S. Domestic Law Constraints

1) U.S. Constitution — War Powers

Under the U.S. Constitution, only Congress may declare war or authorize significant military force.

• A president acting unilaterally without congressional authorization to use force abroad may violate the War Powers Resolution (1973) and constitutional separation of powers — a longstanding legal argument noted by scholars. CEPR

2) Federal Statutes on Sanctions & Foreign Policy

The U.S. sanctions regime (via Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC) does not give the executive branch the authority to seize another country’s resources by force — only to prohibit U.S. persons and entities from engaging in certain dealings. This is a civil economic regulation, not authorization for military or takeover actions.

---

III. “Insider Trading” & Related U.S. Law

1) Securities & Exchange Laws (U.S.)

U.S. insider trading law prohibits:

• Trading securities based on material non-public information.

• Tipping such information to others who trade on it.
  Typically codified in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Rule 10b-5) and related provisions. Investor

However:

• These laws apply to securities trading, not foreign policy/military decisions per se.

• A president communicating intentions that affect resource industries could in theory raise questions under U.S. securities law if those communications were tied to tradeable securities or financial markets, but enforcement against a president for foreign policy statements is unprecedented and legally untested.

---

IV. Why This “Tipping” Could Raise Legal Issues (But With Limits)

1) International Law: Incentive to Plunder Another Nation

If a head of state knowingly signals plans to take over or control another country’s resources, that could be:

• evidence of intent to violate sovereign rights and pillage under international law,

• potentially justifying international legal claims or actions by other states or international bodies.

This would not primarily be a technical “insider trading” violation, but rather a demonstration of intent to commit unlawful interference with another nation’s economy and resources, which is actionable under international state responsibility regimes (e.g., International Court of Justice, UN complaints, or sanctions by other states). Al Jazeera

2) Civil or Criminal Liability at International Level

There is no universally accepted criminal enforcement mechanism for such conduct unless it qualifies as:

• a war crime (pillage or appropriation of resources),

• a crime against humanity (in extraordinary circumstances).

But intent and communication by the commander-in-chief could be used as evidence in international proceedings or by independent jurisdictions asserting universal jurisdiction.

---

V. Summary

Here’s what #UScongress and #USsenate are as the legislative power of the United States, and countries like #Canada, #Denmark # Greenland #Panama #Mexico #Venezuela and even #Argentina and #Ecuador should break down legally:

Potential International Law Violations

• UN Charter — illegal use of force without Security Council authorization or self-defense justification. Oxfam International

• Sovereignty over natural resources — a foundational international norm; foreign appropriation is unlawful. Al Jazeera

• Pillage prohibition — expressly prohibited under Hague Regulations and humanitarian law. ICRC Databases

Potential U.S. Law Issues

• War Powers constitutional limits — unapproved military actions may violate U.S. domestic law. CEPR

• Sanctions regime does not authorize seizure by force — economic tools are different from military actions.

“Insider Trading” Analogies

• U.S. securities laws ban insider trading and tipping, but those statutes apply to securities, not direct foreign policy announcements, and there is no clear legal precedent for applying them to presidential speech or strategy.

---

VI. Practical Legal Avenues That Could Be Pursued

1. International Court of Justice (ICJ): States (like Venezuela or regional blocs) could sue for violations of sovereignty and unlawful use of force.

2. UN Security Council or General Assembly censure: Legal condemnation for violating charter principles.

3. Universal jurisdiction in foreign courts: Allegations of war crimes (pillage) might be raised in jurisdictions that recognize such claims.

4. Civil claims by investors: If companies trade on advantage from illicit information, they might face SEC action — but applying this to foreign policy decisions would be novel.