The US attack on Venezuela and the collapse of international law |
The United States attack on Venezuela on January 3 should be understood not simply as an unlawful use of force, but as part of a broader shift towards nihilistic geopolitics in which international law is openly subordinated to imperial management of global security. What is at stake is not only Venezuela’s sovereignty, but the collapse of any remaining confidence in the capacity of the United Nations system, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council, to restrain aggression, prevent genocide, or uphold the core legal norms they claim to defend.
The military intervention, its political aftermath, and the accompanying rhetoric of US leadership together expose a system in which legality is invoked selectively, veto power substitutes for accountability, and coercion replaces consent. Venezuela thus becomes both a case study and a warning: not of the failure of international law as such, but of its deliberate marginalisation by those states entrusted with managing global security.
From the standpoint of international law, this action constitutes a crude, brazen, unlawful and unprovoked recourse to aggressive force, in clear violation of the core norm of the UN Charter, Article 2(4), which reads: “All Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The only qualification to this prohibition is set out in Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” This flagrant violation of Venezuelan territorial sovereignty and political independence was preceded by years of US sanctions, weeks of explicit threats, and recent lethal attacks on vessels allegedly transporting drugs, as well as seizures of tankers carrying Venezuelan oil.
This unilateral action was further aggravated by the capture of Venezuela’s head of state, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, by US Special Forces, reportedly guided by the CIA, to face charges of “narco-terrorism” in a US federal court, in apparent violation of sovereign immunity. This imperial posture, openly disregarding the immunity of foreign leaders, was underscored by President Trump’s declared intention to direct Venezuelan policymaking for an indefinite period, ostensibly until the country was “stabilised” sufficiently to restore oil production under the auspices of major US corporations, including Chevron, Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips. When asked who was in charge of Venezuela’s governance, Trump responded impatiently, “We are in charge.”
There is more politically at stake in this drastic reversal of the US Good Neighbour Policy, associated with........