The announcement by United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump that a large-scale military operation was carried out against Venezuela, and that Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were captured and will be tried in the U.S. on charges of terrorism and drug trafficking, raises a highly controversial claim in terms of the basic principles of international law.[1] Such a military intervention makes not only the internal balance of Latin America, but also the legitimacy and binding nature of the global legal order established after the Second World War directly controversial. The core issue is whether the United States can legitimize this action within the framework of international law and what kind of precedent it would create worldwide.
The basic norm of international law on the use of force is clearly stated in Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter. This provision strictly prohibits states from using military force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.[2] This prohibition forms the backbone of the modern international system and recognizes only two exceptions. The first is explicit authorization by the UN Security Council. The second is the right of self-defense that a state may use if it is subjected to an armed attack. In the case of Venezuela, based on the information available to the public, there is neither an authorization from the Security Council nor an imminent and unavoidable armed attack directed from Venezuela against the United States. This situation weakens the legal basis of the intervention from the outset.
The possible defense argument of the United States is based on defining the Maduro government as a “narco-terrorist organization” and claiming that it threatens US national security. However, from the perspective of international law, this approach has serious problems. Drug trafficking and organized crime are certainly serious global threats, but fighting these threats does not give states the right to carry out unilateral military intervention. International law requires criminal accusations to be handled through judicial mechanisms, not through military occupation. Otherwise, the discourse of “fighting crime” becomes a cover for military operations aimed at regime change, which represents one of the most extreme examples of the politicization of law.
In this context, it is difficult to evaluate the operation as “self-defense.” The basic conditions required for self-defense are that the threat must be real, imminent, and unavoidable. There is no concrete and verifiable evidence that the Venezuelan army or state structure is preparing a military attack against the United States. The generally accepted approach in international law doctrine is that potential or hypothetical threats cannot justify the use of military force. Therefore, presenting drug trafficking allegations as a justification for self-defense is political rather than legal.
At this point, the concept of the “crime of aggression” comes to the fore. Since the Nuremberg Trials, the crime of aggression has been defined as the “most serious crime” in international law and has become a category that raises the issue of the individual responsibility of state leaders.[3] The use of military force against the sovereignty of another state without authorization falls within the scope of the crime of aggression if there is no Security Council authorization or conditions of self-defense. When evaluated in this framework, a US intervention in Venezuela
is seen not only as an unlawful use of force but also as an act that could lead to very serious consequences under international criminal law.
Another dimension of the issue is whether this action would actually be punished by sanctions. In theory, the UN Security Council can decide on sanctions against actions that threaten international peace and security. However, the fact that the United States has veto power in the Council makes this mechanism ineffective in practice. This situation shows one of the biggest paradoxes of the international legal order: the most powerful actors not only have the capacity to violate the law, but also the ability to prevent these violations from being punished. Such a situation seriously weakens the principle of universality and equal application of international law.
From Venezuela’s perspective, the possible consequences are very serious. The country, which has already been struggling with economic sanctions, political instability, and a humanitarian crisis for a long time, could be pushed into deeper chaos after a military intervention. The weakening of state authority, the strengthening of armed groups, and the risk of the country moving toward fragmented governance would increase. Such a scenario could create serious security and migration problems not only for the people of Venezuela but also for neighboring countries. A new wave of instability in Latin America would also disrupt regional integration efforts.
In the medium term, Venezuela’s future will largely depend on how the international community responds to this intervention. If the US action does not face a serious diplomatic and legal reaction, a period in which Venezuela’s sovereignty is effectively suspended may begin. This situation could lead to external actors having more direct control over the country’s energy resources and could push Venezuela in the long term toward a semi-trusteeship–like status. Such a development could further deepen anti-American sentiment in Latin America and increase regional polarization.
At the global level, the precedent effect created by this event is extremely dangerous. In international law, the concept of “precedent” is especially important in areas such as the use of force. If an actor like the United States carries out a military intervention with a weak legal basis and this action remains without sanctions, it may encourage other major powers as well. This could cause the international system to move increasingly toward a structure based on the “law of the strong.” In such a world, the deterrent role of law would weaken, and military power could once again become the main tool of foreign policy.
As a result, the alleged US military intervention in Venezuela appears highly troubling from the perspective of international law. Neither the exceptions provided by the UN Charter nor the doctrine of self-defense convincingly justify such an action. This situation represents a critical threshold not only for Venezuela’s sovereignty but also for the future of the global legal order. If such interventions become normalized, the legal architecture built after the Second World War may begin to collapse, and the international system may inevitably move toward a more chaotic and more unpredictable structure.
[1] McKelvie, Geraldine. “Is There Any Legal Justification for the US Attack on Venezuela?”, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/03/is-there-any-legal-justification-for-the-us-attack-on-venezuela-trump-maduro, (Date of Access: 04.01.2026).
[2] “Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice”, United Nations, www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text, (Date of Access: 04.01.2026).
[3] International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija: Declaration of Judge Lal Chand Vohrah. Case No. IT-95-17/1-AR73, 21 July 2000, www.icty.org/x/cases/furundzija/acjug/en/fur-asojvoh000721e.htm, (Date of Access: 04.01.2026).
