France’s international law double standard
By Easton Martin | January 3, 2026
France’s condemnation of the U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro as a violation of international law rests on a selective reading of recent history. If Paris were applying a consistent standard, it would have to reckon with its own role in the 2011 Libya intervention and the fate of Muammar Qaddafi.
NATO’s campaign in Libya was justified under UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized a no-fly zone and limited force to protect civilians. It did not authorize regime change or the removal of Libya’s head of state. Yet in practice, NATO airpower directly enabled rebel forces, Western intelligence supported targeting, and Qaddafi was ultimately hunted down and killed after his convoy was struck. France was among the strongest advocates of that intervention.
Legally, Libya exposed the gap between written law and state practice. The operation clearly exceeded its mandate, yet no international court ruled it unlawful and no Western officials faced consequences.
France now speaks as though international law clearly forbids the capture of a sitting head of state under all circumstances. That position was not upheld in Libya. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, invoked at the time, weakened claims of absolute sovereignty and leadership immunity.
