The reported use of force by the United States against Venezuela, culminating in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, has triggered serious questions about the durability of international law’s most fundamental rules. Even allowing for the authoritarian nature of the Maduro administration, the episode raises concerns that go far beyond Venezuela — touching the core principles governing sovereignty, the use of force, and the immunity of state leaders.
What reportedly happened and why it matters
The operation, according to U.S. officials, followed earlier American strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea. The latest action was described not as an act of war, but as a “law enforcement operation” aimed at bringing accused criminals — including the Venezuelan President — to trial in the United States. Such framing is significant, because if accepted, it would radically expand the circumstances under which states may use force across borders.
For international law, this matters because the prohibition on the use of force is not a marginal rule; it is the cornerstone on which the post-1945 legal order rests.
The UN Charter and the narrow window for using force
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Scholars such as Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro have argued that this provision fundamentally transformed world politics by outlawing war as a legitimate tool of statecraft.
Only two exceptions are recognised:
- Self-defence against an armed attack.
- Use of force authorised by the UN Security Council.
In the Venezuelan case, neither condition appears to be met. There was no ongoing armed attack by Venezuela on the U.S., nor any Security Council mandate. The attempt to justify the operation as law enforcement or regional security stretches international law well beyond its accepted limits.
Expanding self-defence and contested precedents
Legal scholars such as Nico Krisch have described the ban on force as the most constraining rule for powerful states. Over time, hegemonic powers have sought to dilute this constraint by expanding the idea of self-defence to include pre-emptive or anticipatory action, particularly in the context of terrorism.
Similarly, humanitarian intervention — as in NATO’s 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia — has been used to justify force without explicit UN approval, though such actions remain legally contested. What is striking in the Venezuelan episode is that the justification goes even further, grounding force in criminal law enforcement against a foreign head of state.
Leadership, immunity, and the Arrest Warrant precedent
A second major legal issue concerns the treatment of President Maduro. The International Court of Justice, in the Arrest Warrant case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), held that sitting heads of state enjoy immunity ratione personae from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts.
Under international law, this immunity does not depend on:
- Whether elections were free or fair.
- Whether other states recognise the leader as legitimate.
What matters is effective control over territory. Since the Maduro administration exercises such control in Venezuela, the President is entitled to personal immunity. Denying this on subjective political grounds would allow states to selectively withdraw recognition and prosecute foreign leaders — a move that could destabilise the entire international legal system.
Sovereignty, non-intervention, and echoes of old doctrines
Forcibly arresting a foreign national — especially a head of state — on another state’s territory without consent or legal process constitutes an internationally wrongful act. Beyond the immediate violation, the episode has revived fears of a return to interventionist doctrines reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine, long criticised in Latin America as a symbol of imperial overreach.
Such actions undermine the principle of non-intervention, which is essential for protecting weaker states from the discretionary power of stronger ones.
Is international law failing, or is compliance the problem?
The broader concern is whether international law itself needs reform. Scholars like Marko Milanovic argue that the problem lies less in legal rules and more in the declining commitment of states to obey them. The erosion of domestic rule of law — even in established democracies — weakens international norms, since global law ultimately depends on national institutions for enforcement.
While international law has often been used instrumentally by powerful states, many of its core principles, including Article 2(4), are fundamentally anti-authoritarian. Their erosion signals not legal inadequacy, but political unwillingness to accept constraints on power.
What to note for Prelims?
- Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force.
- Only two exceptions: self-defence and UN Security Council authorisation.
- Heads of state enjoy immunity ratione personae under international law.
- Effective control, not recognition, determines entitlement to immunity.
What to note for Mains?
- Critically examine the expansion of self-defence and its implications.
- Discuss the tension between sovereignty and intervention in contemporary geopolitics.
- Analyse how weakening domestic rule of law affects international legal compliance.
- Assess whether powerful states undermine international law through selective interpretation.
