Why the U.S. Operation Against Venezuela Raises Serious Questions Under International Law

The reported U.S. military operation against Venezuela — culminating in the capture of President “Nicolás Maduro” — has triggered sharp legal and diplomatic controversy. Even critics of the Maduro government agree that the episode goes beyond geopolitics, striking at the foundations of the international legal order that governs the use of force, state sovereignty, and the immunity of heads of state.

What exactly happened, and why it is controversial

According to U.S. officials, the cross-border operation was framed as a law-enforcement action aimed at apprehending alleged criminals, including Venezuela’s sitting President and his wife, to face trial in the United States. This followed a series of U.S. strikes in recent months on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea.

What makes this episode extraordinary is not merely the target, but the method. The forcible seizure of a foreign head of state from the territory of a sovereign country represents an escalation far beyond economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or even covert operations — placing it squarely in the realm of the use of force in international relations.

The central legal rule: prohibition on the use of force

At the heart of the controversy lies Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. As scholars such as Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro have argued, the UN Charter fundamentally transformed global order by outlawing war as a legitimate tool of statecraft.

International law recognises only two narrow exceptions to this prohibition:

• Use of force in self-defence against an armed attack
• Use of force authorised by the UN Security Council

In the Venezuelan case, neither exception appears to apply. There was no ongoing armed attack by Venezuela on the U.S., nor was there Security Council authorisation for military action.

How powerful states stretch legal boundaries

Legal scholars have long noted that hegemonic powers often attempt to reinterpret restrictive legal norms. Nico Krisch has described the ban on the use of force as one of the most constraining rules of international law. Over time, states — particularly the U.S. — have sought to dilute this constraint by expanding the notion of self-defence to include anticipatory or pre-emptive action, especially in the context of counterterrorism.

Humanitarian intervention has also been invoked to justify military action, as seen in NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. However, even these contested doctrines struggle to accommodate the Venezuelan operation, which has been justified instead as a “law enforcement” measure — a rationale with little support in international law when force is used across borders without consent.

Why ‘law enforcement abroad’ does not work legally

Under international law, domestic criminal jurisdiction does not extend into the territory of another sovereign state through military means. Claims that President Maduro posed a regional threat or engaged in subversion against the U.S., even if assumed to be true, do not furnish a legal basis for armed intervention.

Invoking ideas reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine — which asserted U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere — further aggravates the issue. Such thinking clashes directly with the post-colonial international order shaped by anti-imperial struggles and the principle of sovereign equality.

Heads of state, immunity, and the Maduro question

A second major legal issue concerns the treatment of President Maduro himself. In the “Arrest Warrant Case”, the International Court of Justice held that sitting heads of state enjoy immunity ratione personae — complete personal immunity — from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts.

This immunity applies irrespective of allegations of criminal conduct. Arguments that Maduro is not a legitimate president due to allegedly rigged elections, or that the U.S. does not recognise his government, carry no weight under international law. What matters is effective control over territory — a test the Maduro administration continues to meet.

Denying immunity based on subjective recognition would create a dangerous precedent, allowing states to selectively strip foreign leaders of protection, destabilising diplomatic relations worldwide.

Abduction, sovereignty, and non-intervention

Forcibly apprehending a foreign national — especially a sitting head of state — on foreign soil without consent or lawful extradition procedures constitutes an internationally wrongful act. It violates not only sovereignty but also the principle of non-intervention in a state’s internal affairs.

Attempts to externally “run” or reshape Venezuela’s political order, through force or coercion, revive accusations of naked imperialism and undermine the legal norms designed to protect weaker states from unilateral power.

The larger question: is international law failing?

This episode adds to a growing list of high-profile violations of core international legal rules in recent years. As public international law scholar Marko Milanovic has argued, the crisis lies less in the content of international law than in the declining political will to comply with it.

The erosion of democratic norms within states has weakened respect for legal constraints at both domestic and international levels. Governments increasingly view law as an obstacle rather than a safeguard.

Yet international law is not inherently authoritarian-friendly. Provisions like Article 2(4) of the UN Charter remain deeply antithetical to arbitrary power. Preserving them requires renewed commitment from democratic forces — not reinterpretation by force, but resistance grounded in legality, accountability, and respect for sovereignty.