Europe’s Uneasy Silence as the United States Tests the Limits of International Law
by Jaffa Levy
·
Europe says it stands for international law. But when an ally breaks it, Europe looks away.
This contradiction has been visible for years, but it has hardened into something more serious. It is no longer just a matter of tone. It now shapes how Europe responds when force is used without a multilateral mandate, and how far it is willing to go to defend its own treaty commitments.
The turning point came in Venezuela. When the United States carried out a unilateral operation, detained Nicolás Maduro, and removed him for trial, the European Union did not call the action unlawful. It did not ask where United Nations authorisation had come from. It did not demand a legal process that matched the gravity of the act.
Instead, Brussels chose caution. A joint statement supported by 26 member states repeated the European Union’s long held view that Maduro lacks democratic legitimacy, urged restraint, and stressed respect for international law and Venezuelan sovereignty. What it did not do was confront the legality of the use of force itself.
Some European leaders were clearer. Spain’s prime minister described the intervention as a violation of international law. France warned that unilateral action risked undermining the principle that force must not be used between states. Others said little, or preferred language about stability over legality.
The difference between this response and Europe’s position on Ukraine is impossible to miss. In Ukraine, international law is treated as absolute and non negotiable. In Venezuela, it became contextual. Law was something to be referenced, not enforced.
This matters because the same logic now sits uncomfortably close to home.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark is a member of Nato. Any coercion directed at Greenland would therefore touch the core of Europe’s legal and security architecture. It would not be a distant crisis. It would be a test of the alliance itself.
The legal question Europe cannot avoid
International law prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of a state except in self defence or with United Nations Security Council authorisation. Denmark’s sovereignty therefore engages the most basic rules of the international system.
Nato’s collective defence clause was designed to respond to attacks from outside the alliance. It offers no clear answer when pressure or coercion comes from within. If the strongest member applies force against another, the alliance’s legal and political foundations are stretched to breaking point.
So far, Greenland has been subject to rhetoric rather than action. American officials have spoken openly about acquiring it and have refused to rule out the use of power. No military move has taken place. But the repetition alone has been enough to trigger a firmer European response than anything seen over Venezuela.
France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom and Denmark issued a joint statement making clear that Greenland’s future is for Denmark and Greenland to decide. Denmark’s prime minister went further, warning that any American move against Greenland would effectively bring Nato to an end as it is currently understood.
Britain’s position captures the dilemma facing Europe. London has said it was not involved in the Venezuela operation and has reaffirmed its commitment to international law. At the same time, it has avoided a direct legal challenge to Washington, presenting the situation as complex and urging restraint.
This caution is not hard to explain. Europe remains heavily dependent on the United States for its security, particularly while Russia’s war in Ukraine continues. But explanation is not the same as justification. Each time the law is applied selectively, Europe weakens its own standing and narrows the space in which it can rely on rules rather than power.
Europe is not powerless. It still has economic weight, diplomatic reach and institutional depth. What it lacks is the willingness to say that international law binds allies as well as adversaries.
Venezuela was the warning. Greenland is the test.
If Europe continues to speak the language of law while shrinking from its consequences, the system it depends on will not collapse under external pressure. It will decay from within.
