The interpretations of law and justice are not, in fact, mutually inclusive, or even nearly synonymous; definitely not, at least as far as socio/economic progress has evolved in the United States contemporarily. Mutual exclusivity has always reigned supreme in the US; no alternative modes of conduct are tolerated, let alone permitted opportunity for contemplation and expression. As with most other crucial causative factors, decisions of this nature are arbitrarily taken, most often covertly. That is to say extra-judicially, solely determined by the 'real' political expediencies of the participating ownership class, as decided among themselves (going as far back as to the very 'framing' of the U.S. Constitution itself), to serve mainly their own narrowly defined, short-sighted capital self-interests, to the detriment of the true flourishing of the broader mass society at-large.
This malice aforethought permeates the entirety of the systemic structural framework and is now being applied across the length and breadth of the globe; in doublespeak 'diplomatically' in international relations, while "the big stick" is now bluntly and unstintingly being wielded across the board, as it always has, perhaps less brazenly, in times past.
Nevertheless, the relentless consistency with which the 'owners' go about 'their business' is incredibly terrifying to those who must face the constant and unrelenting onslaught on their material wellbeing, and usually resultant devastations of life, liberty and living; by drones -- the loss of even a minimal human dignity; of children, woman and men; defamation of spirit -- being arbitrarily branded and stigmatized terrorist by application of the phenomenon: psychological projection whereby "the pot (is) calling the kettle black"; and the ultimate crime, the massive unleashing of indiscriminate death itself, mostly at the hands of proxy unseen attackers.
According to US edict alone "(the) City upon a Hill" gets to determine that all who are not considered, by this solely unilateral US criterion, as designated allies, are then categorized as the 'other' -- the enemy; and therefore, as threat potential.
For the owners, it is simply a 'black' or 'white' world (no pun intended), profit or loss, us or them. They magically believe that upper-case 'US' means 'exceptional entitlement' and does not incorporate lower-case 'us' -- the rest of the overwhelming majorities of the entire global population. To them 'US' translates into us against them -- being the entire US itself, ignoring the obvious and profound disparities existing in the US society itself. To them it is not us AND them, as on a one-world planet.
Their unmitigated capitalist methodology is derivative of an addictive greed fulfillment, and monopoly of possession, not unlike an unaddressed cancer. It eventually consumes itself -- the host, just as they are doing with our one-world planet.
Their enemy is all those who don't toe the 'US' line and passively go along with the oligarchical plutocratic program of submission to the unregulated one-size-fits-all capitalistic model. And those who don't toe the line must be made examples of, in order that no 'good examples' of resistance to greed and vindictive malice will be permitted for any 'others' to observe, learn from, and perhaps, elect to follow.
Humanity culturally is more diverse (or it once was) and is not of a one-size-fits-all concept where greed alone is regarded as the soul (pun intended) motivator.
Example: In this kind of reality, therefore, North Korea may become a potential threat, because it may soon acquire its own nuclear deterrence capacity. Now, as far as the 'US' (how is one to fully comprehend the extent of the contextual term, the US?) is concerned, NK, or any other country, which rightfully may feel intimidated and/or threatened, by US stockpiles of nuclear weapons, does not have the like singular right that the US favors, solely for itself alone; to determine who its potential enemies are.
North Korea, unlike Venezuela, has no fossil fuel to speak of. So, whereas in Venezuela the threat to the US does not lie in Venezuela's ability to defend its own interests, but rather in that they, for the first time since the inception of Bolivarian socialism, continue to directly own and control the world's greatest untapped source of fossil fuel. At this point in the development of the world industrial system, at which it finds itself right now in its 'progress', fossil fuel is becoming a priceless commodity, more and more sought after by the driver-owners of the global monopoly market place. And therefore, this simple fact alone jeopardizes US hegemony, as seen from their despotic, narrow and short-sighted perspective.
With potential nuclear deterrence in their hands, the actual risk, in the near future, of attempting to overthrow the 'dictator' of NK is far greater than it is for toppling the democratically elected President Maduro - right now, who is fully within his Venezuelan constitutional rights, to call for a constituent assembly, as a means of defense - to fend off those who have no regard but for their own plutocratic interests in order to bring about a greater degree of economic and social equity to the inhabitants of all of Venezuela.
However, some Venezuelans - the owners of the historically entrenched economic system, backed by the owners and purveyors of the entire global economic structure, do not approve of 'Bolivarian socialism'. It is, therefore, an understatement to say, in the very near term, the future looks bleak.
One might assume, though apparently wrongly, that diplomacy is an art, based on mutual respect, consultation and tactful dialog in the expression and exchange of ideas among, and between, sovereignly independent negotiators, which was the supposed august purpose of a body such as the United Nations. But this is merely yet another 'grand illusion', perpetrated (as facts bear out) by those nations -- read 'corporate entities', who show no regard for any decisions reached in sovereign democratic consensus, by simply abstaining, or threatening to withhold payment of dues - as coercion, when decisions go against their express wishes.
The term 'foreign policy' is surely not meant to be understood as 'the unmitigated gall of a dictatorial power to the unilateral 'right of power', to interfere in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. It definitely does not rest upon, nor is it -- regrettably, as it is perhaps now understood to be -- led by these manifest displays of such examples, by "(the) city upon on a hill", by a large and diverse number of 'other' nations.
The ownership of the term 'foreign policy', however, according to unilateral US belief, appears to be precisely that. It belongs, implicitly, to the owners and power-mongers of the global economy, namely 'US'.
The so-called, one global socio/economic foundation has been imposed on the world by the owners of this corporate capitalist artifice to the detriment of the 99% of the populace and, more urgently, to the very survival of the one planet we are just beginning to understand.
What other mere words will suffice to adequately describe this insouciance?