Contemporary examples include the removal of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and the ongoing struggles against the Iranian regime. Historical instances, such as the extrajudicial execution of Benito Mussolini, the Manhattan Project, the Allied bombing of Nazi Germany, the NATO intervention in Kosovo, the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq and the NATO-backed removal of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, illustrate how frequently salutary outcomes are intertwined with acts of considerable legal or moral ambiguity.

The difficulty in passing judgement arises not from a lack of clarity in principle, but from the collision of values. On one hand, solidarity with oppressed populations and the pursuit of justice inspire support for decisive action. On the other, adherence to law, sovereignty, and due process imposes essential constraints. When a desirable result is secured through unlawful means, movements grounded in ethical universalism often struggle to articulate a coherent response. This tension lies at the very heart of political ethics.

Across legal, philosophical, and political traditions, there is a consistent and enduring warning: a favourable outcome does not redeem unlawful or immoral action. In international law, Latin maxims articulate this principle with particular clarity. Ex iniuria ius non oritur reminds us that law cannot arise from injustice, whilst turpis causa non oritur actio underscores that no legitimate claim derives from a dishonourable cause. Immanuel Kant articulated this principle in secular terms, declaring that “an action is right only if it can be willed as a universal law,” and further insisting that “human beings must always be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means.”

Political acts that violate law or sovereignty for instrumental purposes risk reducing populations, institutions, and norms to mere instruments, rather than recognising their intrinsic value. John Stuart Mill similarly cautioned against justifying violence on the grounds of abstract utility, observing that “despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, but force used for purposes of abstract good is rarely innocent.” Hannah Arendt, reflecting on totalitarian regimes and the exercise of political violence, asserted that “no cause, no matter how noble, can justify the use of immoral means.” Albert Camus succinctly observed that “when the means are unjust, the ends are poisoned.” Such reflections illuminate a persistent problem: even outcomes that appear desirable cannot absolve acts of illegality or immorality.

Historical cases render this tension tangible. Benito Mussolini, executed by Italian partisans in 1945, brought an end to fascism in Italy, and the outcome is widely regarded as beneficial. Yet the extrajudicial nature of the act renders it legally and ethically problematic. The Manhattan Project during the Second World War culminated in the development of nuclear weapons that contributed to the conclusion of the war against Japan, but involved ethically controversial experimentation and resulted in enormous civilian casualties.

Similarly, the Allied bombing campaigns against Nazi Germany, while instrumental in defeating Hitler, inflicted extensive civilian deaths and remain ethically contentious. The NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, undertaken without United Nations Security Council authorisation, prevented mass atrocities by Serbian forces, yet its legality under international law remains debated. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which removed Saddam Hussein, eliminated a brutal dictatorship but violated international law and precipitated widespread instability, illustrating the complexities of interventionist justice. In Libya, the NATO-backed removal of Muammar Gaddafi concluded decades of oppressive rule, yet the absence of post-conflict planning and legal ambiguities generated enduring chaos.

In Venezuela, the removal of Nicolás Maduro presents a contemporary illustration of this ethical dilemma. While many observers welcome the termination of an authoritarian regime marked by repression and institutional collapse, the absence of international sanction and the unilateral nature of the action elicit serious legal concerns. In Iran, ongoing protests highlight comparable tensions, as domestic movements seek liberation while foreign interventions risk contravening international law, exacerbating violence, and harming civilians. Even the most legitimate uprisings must carefully navigate the tension between immediate change and the hazards of illegitimate or violent methods.

Throughout the history of political philosophy, eminent thinkers have recognised that, under exceptional circumstances, breaking the law may be morally justified to protect justice, human dignity, or the common good. Aristotle introduced the principle of epieikeia, arguing that strict adherence to the law may itself become unjust when circumstances diverge from its intended purpose. Thomas Aquinas maintained that an unjust law is a perversion of true law, and disobedience may be obligatory when legal norms contradict natural law or the welfare of society. John Locke asserted that when rulers systematically violate natural rights, illegal resistance becomes legitimate, as the social contract itself has been broken.

Rousseau suggested that laws retain legitimacy only when they express the general will, allowing extra-legal action when institutions fail to reflect collective self-rule. In the modern era, Thoreau, Arendt, and Rawls emphasised that law-breaking must be conscientious, non-violent, and accompanied by acceptance of responsibility, while Michael Walzer introduced the concept of “supreme emergency,” justifying rare violations of law to prevent mass atrocity.

Across these perspectives, a clear principle emerges: the morality of breaking the law depends not on achieving good outcomes alone, but on necessity, proportionality, minimisation of harm, respect for the agency of affected populations, and the restoration of justice. Such a framework offers guidance for activists in Venezuela, Iran, and beyond, demonstrating that ethical law-breaking is possible only when it serves a higher moral purpose, rather than mere expedience.

Humanists and socialists traditionally ground their political philosophy in universal norms, including the respect for human dignity, self-determination, equality, and adherence to international law. When a desirable outcome, such as the demise of an authoritarian ruler, is achieved through mechanisms widely judged unlawful, the dilemma assumes acute significance.

Should the removal of Maduro’s authoritarian grip justify unilateral action, or must the breach of international law temper or even invalidate the moral claim of liberation? Even when outcomes are laudable, the use of unlawful means, whether military intervention absent international mandate, extrajudicial killings, or other breaches, cannot be disregarded. This constitutes the practical and ethical challenge that movements devoted to humanist and socialist principles must confront.

A disciplined ethical framework may assist in evaluating whether unlawful action can ever be justified by desirable outcomes. It is necessary first to ascertain whether all lawful, peaceful, and multilateral avenues have been genuinely exhausted. Illegality cannot be sanctioned if legal mechanisms, collective initiatives, or domestic democratic forces remain viable. The agency of the affected population must be respected. Actions imposed externally, however benevolent in intention, undermine legitimacy and violate the principle of self-determination. Proportionality and harm must be carefully considered.

Any intervention or action must minimise foreseeable harm to civilians and institutions, for disproportionate consequences negate claims of necessity. Long-term preservation of norms is essential. Violations that erode international legal standards invite future abuses, and once exceptions are established as precedent, law collapses into the mere exercise of power. Finally, those who transgress the law must be willing to accept responsibility, for assuming consequences distinguishes principled disobedience from opportunistic force.

For young activists, a practical guideline emerges. Support the pursuit of liberation and human rights, but never condone illegal or violent interventions imposed externally. All efforts must prioritise legality, proportionality, and the agency of the populations affected. Good ends do not justify unlawful means. Activists may advocate for outcomes that advance justice, yet they must insist that the methods employed respect law, sovereignty, and democratic principle. This is not weakness, but ethical responsibility.

Political life is invariably laden with tragic choices. Outcomes may be desirable while methods remain flawed, and history often evaluates consequences independently from processes. The duty of humanist and socialist movements is to reconcile these dual realities: to acknowledge the benefit of liberatory outcomes while simultaneously condemning illegal or unethical conduct. As Kant observed, “From the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” Ethical clarity for emerging activists requires action that maximises justice and minimises harm, even when shortcuts appear tempting or successes spectacular.

Cultural diplomacy

Cultural diplomacy provides a strategic and ethically sound means of achieving meaningful change without resorting to illegality or violence. By fostering dialogue, educational and cultural exchanges, and active engagement with civil society, governments and organisations can support populations under authoritarian rule while upholding the principles of law and sovereignty. These initiatives empower local actors, build trust and mutual understanding, and create conditions conducive to lasting, systemic transformation. In this way, cultural diplomacy exemplifies how positive and transformative outcomes can be attained through lawful, non-violent, and principled means, offering a practical alternative to interventions that, however well-intentioned, may compromise ethical or legal standards.

History commends prudence and principle, not expedient victories alone.

• Independent