Context

• The alleged attack by the United States on Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro represents a grave violation of international law.
• Even acknowledging the authoritarian nature of the Maduro administration, internal governance failures do not justify external military intervention.
• The incident raises serious legal concerns relating to the use of force, state sovereignty, and the protection accorded to heads of state.
• More broadly, it highlights the erosion of the international rule of law in a period marked by declining respect for legal constraints on power.

The Prohibition on the Use of Force

• The cornerstone of the modern international legal order is the prohibition on the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.
• This provision forbids states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.
• The Charter recognises only two exceptions: self-defence in response to an armed attack, and force authorised by the UN Security Council. Neither condition was satisfied in the Venezuelan case.
• Although this framework is clear, powerful states have repeatedly sought to dilute its force.
• Expansive interpretations of self-defence, including anticipatory and pre-emptive action, have been advanced, particularly in counterterrorism contexts.
• Similarly, claims of humanitarian intervention have been used to justify military action without Security Council approval.
• Yet even these controversial doctrines fail to accommodate unilateral military action against Venezuela, where no armed attack or imminent threat was established.

The Illegality of Law-Enforcement Justifications

• The U.S. operation was reportedly framed as a law-enforcement measure aimed at apprehending alleged criminals, including the Venezuelan President.
• This rationale stretches international law beyond recognition. International law maintains a firm distinction between domestic criminal jurisdiction and the cross-border use of armed force.
• Military incursions into another state’s territory cannot be justified by reference to criminal prosecution objectives.
• Accepting such a justification would set a dangerous precedent, allowing states to characterise military interventions as policing operations to evade legal constraints.
• This approach undermines the principle of sovereign equality and risks normalising unilateral coercion.

Head-of-State Immunity and the Status of President Maduro

• A central legal issue concerns the treatment of President Maduro following his capture.
• Under international law, sitting heads of state enjoy immunity ratione personae of sitting heads of state from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts.
• This immunity is absolute during their term of office and applies regardless of the nature of the alleged offences.
• As a result, domestic courts of another state lack jurisdiction to prosecute a serving head of state.
• Arguments seeking to deny this immunity based on the alleged illegitimacy of Maduro’s election or lack of diplomatic recognition are legally unsound.
• International law does not condition immunity on democratic credentials or external recognition.
• The decisive criterion is effective control over state territory and institutions. Since the Maduro administration exercised such control, its head remained entitled to full personal immunity.
• Allowing states to unilaterally withdraw recognition and deny immunity would destabilise diplomatic relations and invite selective enforcement.

Sovereignty, Non-Intervention, and Imperial Overreach

• The forcible apprehension of a foreign national on another state’s territory without consent constitutes an internationally wrongful act.
• This violation is particularly acute when the individual concerned is a sitting head of state.
• Such conduct breaches fundamental principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, which are essential to maintaining international stability.
• Any attempt to influence or control Venezuela’s political trajectory through coercive means further compounds the illegality.
• These actions evoke earlier forms of imperial domination and reinforce perceptions that international law is applied selectively.
• Such practices weaken trust in the international legal system and embolden further violations.

The Broader Crisis of International Law

• The Venezuelan episode is symptomatic of a wider pattern of disregard for international legal norms, especially those governing the use of force.
• Repeated violations risk hollowing out the authority of international law. The problem lies not in the substance of the law, but in the declining willingness of states to comply with it.
• The weakening of domestic rule-of-law institutions has had a direct and corrosive effect on international legal accountability.
• At the same time, international law should not be dismissed as merely a tool of powerful states.
• Core norms, particularly those restricting the use of force, remain fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism and unilateral domination.

Conclusion

• The U.S. action against Venezuela constitutes a serious breach of international law, violating rules on the use of force, sovereignty, and head-of-state immunity.
• Beyond its immediate illegality, the episode exemplifies a broader decline in respect for legal restraints on power.
• Strengthening international law ultimately depends on revitalising domestic democracy and the rule of law.
• Without such commitment, foundational norms will continue to be eroded by authoritarian impulses and imperial ambitions.