Washington, DC — 9 January 2026
On 3 January 2026, United States 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 operation, the United States targeted vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean and extrajudicially killed 115 individuals whom the Trump administration claimed—without providing evidence—were narco-terrorists.
While the US government has characterized the operation as a targeted “law enforcement” action against alleged drug traffickers, legal experts, foreign governments, and international bodies have widely concluded that the use of force violates core principles of international law, particularly the UN Charter, and may constitute a crime of aggression under the Rome Statute.
Use of Force, Self-Defense, and Crimes of Aggression
Prohibition on the Use of Force
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter requires all Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances. This principle is a cornerstone of modern international law. Military invasions, airstrikes, and armed incursions are presumed unlawful unless a recognized exception applies. Regime change, arrests, or unilateral “law enforcement” operations do not qualify as such exceptions.
Limits of Self-Defense Under Article 51
Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self-defense only in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat thereof. Any such action must meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality. The US operation constituted a unilateral use of military force on Venezuelan territory. There has been no clear evidence of an armed attack or an imminent threat posed by Venezuela that would justify invoking self-defense. Allegations of criminal activity, including drug trafficking, do not meet the Article 51 threshold. As a result, self-defense cannot justify the operation, which is widely interpreted as an unlawful use of force and a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.
Crime of Aggression Under the Rome Statute
International law experts have characterized the operation as potentially constituting a crime of aggression, one of the gravest violations under international law and the Nuremberg Principles. Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 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. The examples provided include invasion, military occupation, and bombardment—all of which are relevant to the present case.
UN Security Council Authorization
Articles 39 through 42 of the UN Charter establish that only the UN Security Council may authorize the use of force in response to threats to international peace and security. No Security Council resolution authorized US military action against Venezuela. The operation, therefore, bypassed the collective security framework established by the Charter.
Following the attack, the Security Council convened an emergency session amid widespread criticism of the operation’s legality, including from permanent members France, Russia, and China. While the United States holds veto power as a permanent member of the Council, that authority does not legitimize unilateral uses of force under international law.
Violation of Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity
International law is grounded in the principle of state sovereignty and political independence. UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970), the Declaration on Principles of International Law, affirms that no state has the right to intervene—directly or indirectly—in the internal or external affairs of another state for any reason.
Under established extradition and law enforcement norms, criminal jurisdiction does not permit cross-border military operations. Arrest warrants issued by one state do not authorize entry into another sovereign territory to detain individuals. Extradition must occur through formal legal processes, including treaties and judicial cooperation. Actions carried out without consent or legal basis may constitute unlawful abduction under international law.
Unilateral military operations framed as “law enforcement” fundamentally violate these principles and lack any recognized legal justification.
A Dangerous Precedent
Permitting a powerful state to use military force without clear legal justification—even against a controversial or repressive government—sets a dangerous precedent. It undermines the foundational principles of the UN Charter and weakens the broader international legal order.
The US military action in Venezuela, including airstrikes and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, lacked both Security Council authorization and a valid self-defense claim. This breach lowers the threshold for other states to justify similar actions under comparable pretexts, increasing the risk of future conflicts.
It also blurs the distinction between law enforcement and armed conflict, eroding norms designed to constrain the use of force. If left unchecked, such actions risk normalizing unilateral military interventions driven by geopolitical or economic interests rather than adherence to international law.
Call for Accountability and Protection of Civilians
The Genocide Report urges the United States to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law and to prioritize the protection of civilians in Venezuela. We remain deeply concerned about the risk of further human rights violations arising from ongoing developments.
We call for all alleged violations committed by the Maduro government to be independently investigated and for those responsible to be held accountable under international law. Perpetrators must be prosecuted before independent and impartial courts to ensure justice for victims and survivors.
Photo credit: 26-01-03 01 Venezuela Under Attack by Felton Davis. Licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report (TGR). She has conducted extensive fieldwork in conflict and displacement settings, including Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her work focuses on humanitarian crises, international law, and atrocity prevention.