Washington, DC., 9 January 2026——
On 3 January 2026, US military forces carried out a major operation in Venezuela, including air and ground strikes, and the arrest and extradition of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In the lead-up to the January 3 invasion, the US targeted vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, and extrajudicially executed 115 people, whom the Trump administration claimed, without providing any evidence, were narco-terrorists.
While the US government claims the operation in Venezuela was a targeted “law-enforcement” action against alleged drug traffickers, legal experts, foreign governments, and international bodies have overwhelmingly concluded that this use of force violates core principles of international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, and could amount to crimes of aggression under the Rome Statute.
Use of Force, Self-Defense, and Crimes of Aggression
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter clearly states that all Member States must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, except in the most exceptional circumstances. This is the cornerstone rule of modern international law. Any military invasion, airstrike, or armed incursion into another state is presumed illegal unless a narrow exception applies. Regime change, arrests, or “law-enforcement” operations do not qualify as exceptions.
Article 51 of the UN Charter addresses the issue of “self-defense.” Self-defense is allowed only after an armed attack, or in response to an imminent one. It must meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality. The US operation was a unilateral direct use of military force on Venezuelan territory. There was no clear case of an impending armed attack against the US by Venezuela that could justify self-defense. Allegations of criminal activity, drug trafficking, or political hostility do not meet the Article 51 threshold. Therefore, self-defense cannot justify the invasion, and the action is interpreted as an illegal use of force and a breach of Venezuelan sovereignty.
International law experts have characterized the operation as amounting to a “crime of aggression,” the gravest offense under the Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – Article 8 bis, defines a crime of aggression as the “use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State…” Examples listed include invasion, military occupation, and bombardment.
UN Security Council Authorization
Articles 39-42 of the UN Charter state that only the UN Security Council may authorize the use of force to address threats to international peace. No Security Council resolution authorized US military action against Venezuela. Unilateral action bypasses the collective security system established by the Charter. Following the attack, the Security Council convened an emergency session in response, with widespread criticism of its legality, including members of the Permanent 5, France, Russia, and China.
A point of concern is that, as a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, the US can block a formal condemnation. However, the veto power does not legitimize the use of force under the Charter.
Violation of Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity
International law is built on respect for state sovereignty and independence. UNGA Resolution 2625 (1970), Declaration on Principles of International Law, states that “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.”
Under extradition and law enforcement norms, criminal jurisdiction does not permit cross-border military operations. Arrest warrants issued by one country do not grant the authority to enter another sovereign state to capture or detain its leaders. Extradition must occur via treaties and judicial cooperation, not force. Forcing such actions without consent is effectively kidnapping under international law. Unilateral military invasions, even for “law enforcement” purposes, violate these fundamental norms and have no legal basis under international law.
Dangerous Precedent
Allowing a powerful state to use military force without a clear legal justification – even against a controversial or repressive government – sets a dangerous precedent. It challenges core principles of international law and the UN system. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state’s sovereignty without Security Council authorization or clear self-defense. The US military attack in Venezuela, including airstrikes and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, lacked both. That breach makes it easier for other countries to justify similar actions in the future. It could encourage other states to use force unilaterally under similar pretexts, for example, Russia in Ukraine, or China in Taiwan.
It weakens the authority of international legal frameworks designed to prevent war and protect sovereignty. International law treats all states as equal in rights and obligations. The notion of “law enforcement” as a pretext for foreign military invasion threatens to blur the line between policing and war. This erosion of international norms could undermine the very frameworks that constrain conflict between states.
US actions in Venezuela signal that geopolitical interests outweigh legal restraints. Strategic or economic interests, such as access to resources, geopolitical influence, or reducing the presence of rival powers, may become the dominant driver, rather than collective legal standards or diplomacy. If those legal and diplomatic restraints erode, it increases regional instability and raises the risk of conflicts expanding or being triggered elsewhere.
TGR urges the US to uphold and abide by international and human rights law and to prioritize the protection of civilians in Venezuela. We are concerned about the risks of ongoing and further human rights violations to civilians in response to US actions. We call for the Maduro government to be investigated for human rights violations and held accountable to the fullest extent of international law. We ask that perpetrators be prosecuted before an independent and impartial court to ensure justice for the survivors and victims of violations in Venezuela.
Photo credit: 26-01-03 01 Venezuela Under Attack by Felton Davis. Licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0