Power, Not Law? Venezuela as a Breach of Jus ad Bellum and State Sovereignty |
On 3 January 2026, a military operation was executed on the sovereign territory of Venezuela, culminating in the apprehension and coercive transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. There, he was presented before federal judicial authorities to answer criminal charges. While publicly characterized as a law-enforcement action directed at alleged transnational criminal activity, this intervention, from the standpoint of international law, prima facie constitutes an unlawful recourse to force and a manifest violation of the principle of state sovereignty foundational to the Charter of the United Nations.
This analysis asserts that the operation, conducted without territorial consent, Security Council authorisation, or a circumstance precluding wrongfulness, constitutes an unlawful act of aggression. More critically, it signals a dangerous regression from a rule-based order to a system where powerful states unilaterally enforce their domestic law abroad. The precedent threatens to unravel the core architecture of the United Nations Charter (UN Charter), substituting multilateral legal process with power-based coercion and thereby undermining the very foundations of international peace and security.
State sovereignty, enshrined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter, grants a state exclusive authority over its territory. The direct corollary of this principle is the prohibition of the use of force under Article 2(4). A military operation by one state on another’s territory without consent is a prima facie breach of this prohibition, irrespective of its stated law-enforcement objectives. The objective act—deploying armed forces to abduct a foreign head of state—constitutes a direct attack on the territorial state’s political independence and territorial integrity. The UN Charter permits only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence under Article 51, triggered by an armed attack; or Security Council-authorized enforcement under Chapter VII. Neither applies here. No armed attack by Venezuela has been alleged, nor has the Security Council authorized this operation.
This conclusion is supported by the consistent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In Nicaragua v United States, the Court affirmed sovereignty as a “fundamental principle[] of international law” (para. 212). In Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v Uganda), it held that unconsented military operations violate Article 2(4) and the principle of non-intervention (para. 345(1)). Consequently, the operation against President Maduro constitutes an unlawful use of force, violating Venezuela’s sovereignty and undermining the Charter’s normative framework for international security.
International law differentiates between prescriptive, adjudicative, and enforcement jurisdiction. While States may, under limited circumstances, exercise extraterritorial prescriptive jurisdiction—typically grounded in principles such as nationality or the protective principle—enforcement jurisdiction remains primarily confined to the territory of the State. The exercise of domestic enforcement powers abroad, including arrest, detention, or other coercive measures, is permissible only with the consent of the territorial........