The capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces represents a direct challenge to the foundational rules of the post-1945 international legal order. The episode is significant not because of the character of the Maduro regime, but because it demonstrates the abandonment of core legal restraints that govern the use of force, jurisdiction, and sovereignty among states.

The rules-based international order is grounded in a central legal commitment: states may not enforce legal claims or political outcomes through unilateral military force. This commitment is codified in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The prohibition is not discretionary and is not contingent on the legitimacy of the target government. It admits of only two exceptions. First is self-defence under Article 51. Second is authorisation by the UN Security Council.

The US operation in Venezuela satisfies neither condition.

Article 51 permits the use of force only in response to an armed attack. International law requires that such an attack be kinetic in nature and attributable to the target state. Allegations of drug trafficking, transnational crime, migration pressure, electoral manipulation, or internal repression do not constitute armed attacks within the meaning of Article 51.

The expansion of self-defence to........

© News18