The international community is grappling with profound legal and geopolitical questions following the United States' unprecedented military operation in Venezuela. The action, dubbed Operation "Absolute Resolve," resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, alongside military strikes on the capital, Caracas. The event, which unfolded in early January 2026, has been widely condemned as a severe breach of international norms.
Operation Absolute Resolve: Stated Goals vs. Legal Reality
The US government, under President Donald Trump, justified the intervention on two primary grounds. Firstly, it asserted that Maduro illegitimately held power after stealing the 2024 Venezuelan elections. More critically, a federal court in New York had indicted him on charges including "Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy" and "cocaine importation conspiracy." The indictment accused Maduro and his predecessors of corrupting state institutions to facilitate drug trafficking into the US for over 25 years.
However, legal scholars and global leaders have swiftly challenged the legality of the military response. Critics argue that even if the allegations are true, drug smuggling does not constitute an "armed attack" as defined by international law, thus invalidating it as a justification for invasion and regime change.
A Clear Violation of the UN Charter
At the heart of the criticism is the United Nations Charter. Marc Weller, a professor and Director of the International Law Programme at Chatham House, stated the operation is a "clearly a significant violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and the UN Charter."
The charter's Article 2 (4) explicitly mandates all members to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." The sole exception, under Article 51, is the right to self-defence against an armed attack. Legal experts uniformly agree that narco-trafficking charges, however serious, fail to meet this high legal threshold, setting a perilous new precedent.
Global Repercussions and a Warning from the UN
The ramifications of this action extend far beyond Venezuela. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed being "deeply alarmed" by the escalation, labelling the developments a "dangerous precedent." This sentiment echoes fears that other global powers might now feel emboldened to undertake similar unilateral military actions under flimsy pretexts, with analysts pointing to potential flashpoints like Taiwan.
Editorial boards, including that of The New York Times, have questioned the stated rationale. They noted that Venezuela is not a significant source of the deadly opioid fentanyl, a primary US concern, suggesting the real motive aligns with a new National Security Strategy aiming to "restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere." The NYT editorial condemned the move as a form of "latter-day imperialism."
Historical Precedents: Nicaragua and Panama
Historical parallels offer limited insight. The 1984 Nicaragua vs United States of America case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) saw the court rule that US support for Contra rebels was disproportionate and violated Nicaraguan sovereignty—a ruling the US ignored.
A more direct comparison is the 1989 US invasion of Panama to capture its leader, General Manuel Noriega, also on drug charges. The UN General Assembly condemned that invasion, but Noriega was still tried and sentenced in the US. During his trial, his defence that the abduction violated international law was rejected by US courts, which cited an 1886 ruling that forcible abduction does not strip jurisdiction. This legal manoeuvre from the Noriega case may now be invoked in the proceedings against Maduro, who could face a similar fate.
The capture of Nicolas Maduro represents a watershed moment, challenging the very foundations of the post-World War II international order. As legal debates rage, the world watches to see if this action becomes an isolated incident or a template for a new, more volatile era of international relations.
