On January 3, 2026, the United States executed a bold military operation in Venezuela, dubbed Operation Absolute Resolve, which culminated in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. This raid, involving over 150 aircraft, airstrikes on key military installations in Caracas, and a ground assault by Delta Force commandos, marked a dramatic escalation in U.S.–Venezuela relations. President Donald Trump announced the success of the mission, framing it as a targeted strike against a “narco-terrorist” regime, and indicated that the U.S. would temporarily oversee Venezuela’s governance to facilitate a power transition.
While the operation reportedly achieved its immediate objectives with no U.S. casualties, it ignited a firestorm of debate over its legality under international law. From the perspective of established global norms, this action constitutes a profound infringement on state sovereignty, thereby threatening the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter.
The Legal Foundations of International Use of Force
International law, as codified in the UN Charter, strictly regulates the use of force between states. Article 2(4) prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” establishing a presumption against military interventions unless explicitly justified. Exceptions are narrow: self-defence under Article 51 in response to an “armed attack,” or actions authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII to maintain international peace and security.
Humanitarian intervention, though occasionally invoked—as in NATO’s 1999 Kosovo campaign—lacks formal legal grounding and is widely viewed as an exceptional political claim rather than a binding precedent.
The U.S. has historically navigated these constraints by recharacterizing military actions as non-invasions. In this case, administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, described the raid as a “law enforcement operation” to apprehend indicted fugitives, supported by the military but not constituting an act of war. Maduro faces U.S. federal charges stemming from a 2020 indictment, including narco-terrorism and cocaine importation, based on allegations of leading the “Cartel de los Soles.”
This framing, however, strains legal credibility. Airstrikes on sovereign territory, suppression of air defences, and the forcible seizure of a sitting head of state unmistakably qualify as a use of force. The International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) held that even indirect support for armed groups could violate sovereignty; a direct cross-border raid far exceeds that threshold.
Sovereignty and the Absence of Justification
Venezuela’s sovereignty is unambiguous under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), which defines statehood by population, territory, government, and capacity for international relations—criteria Venezuela meets despite political turmoil. The U.S. action bypassed Venezuelan consent, UN authorisation, and any collective regional mechanism, including the Organisation of American States.
Self-defence under Article 51 requires an “armed attack,” generally interpreted as military aggression, not criminal activities such as drug trafficking. While Washington has long characterised the Maduro government as a security threat due to alleged narco-terrorism and ties to armed groups, these allegations do not meet the legal threshold of an armed attack on U.S. territory. Pre-emptive self-defence doctrines—advanced most prominently during the 2003 Iraq invasion—remain widely rejected by the international community as incompatible with the Charter.
Historical analogies underscore the problem. The 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega on drug charges was condemned by both the OAS and the UN General Assembly as a sovereignty violation. Likewise, extraterritorial abductions—such as Israel’s 1960 capture of Adolf Eichmann—were deemed permissible only after retroactive consent by the territorial state, a condition absent here.
Human Rights and Broader Implications
Beyond the legality of resort to force (jus ad bellum), the raid raises acute human rights concerns. Reports indicate approximately 83 Venezuelan casualties, primarily military personnel, resulting from airstrikes on installations such as Fuerte Tiuna and La Carlota. International humanitarian law, applicable at a minimum through Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, mandates distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. Even precision strikes must account for foreseeable civilian harm.
The operation’s aftermath risks deepening Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis. Statements suggesting temporary U.S. administration of the country evoke colonial overtones and threaten further instability, displacement, and proxy confrontation. A permissive precedent—wherein alleged criminality of a leader justifies unilateral force—would erode protections for politically isolated states worldwide.
International Reactions and Potential Consequences
International reactions have been swift and polarised. China condemned the action as a violation of sovereignty; Russia and Iran echoed similar objections, while some regional actors expressed cautious or tacit approval, given their longstanding opposition to Maduro. Venezuela requested emergency meetings of the UN Security Council, though veto dynamics make binding outcomes unlikely.
Legal consequences may nonetheless follow. Venezuela or allied states could seek proceedings before the ICJ, or attempt referrals to the International Criminal Court concerning aggression—though jurisdictional constraints and U.S. non-ratification complicate enforcement. Economically, the operation intersects with interests in Venezuela’s energy sector, but at a high cost to diplomatic legitimacy.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent
From the standpoint of international law, the U.S. raid on Venezuela represents a grave breach of sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force, unsupported by credible legal justification. However serious the allegations against the Maduro government, unilateral military action circumvents the multilateral mechanisms designed to address them—extradition, sanctions, international investigation, and collective security.
By privileging power over law, this operation risks destabilising the region and weakening the post-World War II legal order itself. As an independent human rights defender, I urge renewed commitment to legality, accountability, and diplomacy. Justice pursued outside the law imperils the very norms it claims to defend.
By Minhaz Samad Chowdhury
Independent Human Rights Defender and Policy Advocate
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please validate CAPTCHA