Contrary to widespread diagnoses, Herdegen argued that international law is not at an end, even in light of the American attack on Venezuela. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the intervention constitutes a clear violation of territorial integrity as well as of the prohibition of the use of force under international law.
At the same time, Herdegen called for a more differentiated assessment. In recent years, the Western community of states has repeatedly proven helpless in the face of violent regimes that shield themselves behind the principle of territorial integrity while systematically violating international law domestically and simultaneously exerting international influence through activities such as transnational drug trafficking or other destabilizing measures. This constellation, he argued, reveals structural deficiencies within the existing international legal order.
Against this backdrop, it would be misguided to condemn the U.S. attack in purely general terms. The situation is highly complex, and simplistic moral or legal categorizations fall short. International law, in this context, operates within a field of tension between normative obligation and political reality that does not allow for unambiguous answers.
Herdegen considered a potential takeover of Greenland by the United States to be highly unlikely. Such a step would constitute a breach of international law even without the use of military force, particularly if undertaken against the will of the Greenlandic population. He further pointed to significant forces of institutional and political inertia within the United States that counteract a complete erosion of the American-shaped international order and of international law itself. Such a development, he argued, would not be in the strategic interest of the United States.
At the same time, Herdegen advocated for greater strategic autonomy for Europe. This could manifest, among other things, in an independent European security architecture, conceived even beyond the institutional framework of the European Union.
In conclusion, Herdegen called for an understanding of international law that, on the one hand, must not be undermined by the use of force, but on the other hand should not be interpreted so rigidly that the leading powers turn away from it. Only an international legal order that combines normative stability with political viability can preserve its ordering function within the international system in the long term.
