On January 3, the United States launched a military operation against the sovereign nation of Venezuela, "capturing" its president, Nicolás Maduro. This event is far from a mere isolated "law enforcement operation"; it represents a blatant challenge to the international legal system centered around the United Nations Charter and a thorough and dangerous trampling of the fundamental principles of international relations.

From the perspective of international law and national sovereignty, this action sets an extremely harmful precedent, marking a setback for multilateralism and the rule of international law. Its consequences may ripple across the globe, ultimately affecting every nation that yearns to survive and thrive in a stable order.

Crumbling foundations 

The modern international order rests upon hard-won foundations, anchored in two interdependent principles: the sovereign equality of states and the prohibition of the unlawful use of force.

The concept of sovereign equality traces its doctrinal origins to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Eighty Years' War and the Thirty Years' War in Europe. While its treaties did not explicitly articulate a theory of sovereignty as understood today, they established a precedent: recognizing the authority of rulers over their own territories and faiths, thereby weakening supranational religious or imperial domination.

This Westphalian model later evolved into a cornerstone of international law—affirming that states, regardless of size or power, possess equal rights to territorial integrity, political independence and autonomous foreign relations.

The prohibition of aggressive force emerged as a direct lesson from the catastrophes of the two world wars. It was codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (1945), which obliges all member states to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This norm, reinforced by the UN Security Council's mandate to maintain peace, represents a systemic effort to replace war with collective security and diplomacy.

Together, these principles form the twin pillars of the contemporary international system. They seek to ensure a pluralistic yet stable order in which all nations, large and small, can coexist within a rules-based framework.

However, the U.S. action struck both of these pillars in a near-barbaric fashion. It represented a complete denial of Venezuela's internal sovereignty and external independence. The concept of "sovereignty" was, at that moment, reduced to a hollow slogan by the use of force. What is even more troubling is that the U.S. has cloaked this action in a thin guise of "law enforcement," claiming it was executed to enforce a U.S. court arrest warrant for the president of another country.

This reasoning is fundamentally flawed under international law. Cross-border law enforcement is not a unilateral right but is strictly governed by bilateral treaties, multilateral agreements or the explicit consent of the sovereign state concerned. No principle of international law permits a powerful country to invade another sovereign state under the pretext of enforcing its own domestic legislation.

If such a precedent were accepted, any powerful nation could justify military intervention against another based solely on a domestic arrest warrant or judicial order.

This would effectively nullify the foundational UN Charter principles of sovereign equality and the prohibition of the use of force, plunging the international system into a Hobbesian state of anarchy where "might makes right."

A fragile 'justification' 

To cloak this blatant act of aggression in a veneer of legality, U.S. authorities have carefully constructed a narrative. However, a closer look reveals the fragility and hypocrisy of their argument.

First, they claim the action is an extension of "support for justice," yet internationalizing and militarizing domestic criminal procedures are a distortion of fundamental international legal norms. The international community has mature judicial cooperation mechanisms, including extradition treaties, but the U.S. selectively ignores these peaceful alternatives and directly resorts to force. This is akin to asserting that U.S. domestic law holds supremacy over the internationally recognized principle of sovereignty. This argument brings to mind the colonial practices of the past, which, under the guise of "civilizing missions" or "executing justice," engaged in aggressive plundering—effectively placing one's values and legal systems above those of others.

Second, the U.S. argues that the use of force was necessary to protect the personnel carrying out the arrest, citing "inherent self-defense." However, international law imposes strict limitations on the right of self-defense, which only applies to "armed attacks that have occurred or are imminent." In this case, it was the U.S. that initiated the military action by entering Venezuelan airspace and attacking its air defense forces, thereby "creating" the conflict. The claim of "preemptive self-defense" is a dangerous doctrine that some nations have invoked in recent years to justify the abuse of force. If this argument were to gain widespread acceptance, it would open the door to any preemptive invasion under the guise of self-defense.

Moreover, the U.S. claims that it does not recognize the legitimacy of Maduro's government, attempting to deny him the sovereign immunity granted to heads of state.

Under contemporary international law, the recognition of a government is generally understood to be declarative rather than constitutive. That is, recognition does not create a government's legal status; it acknowledges an existing factual situation. While political recognition by other states can carry diplomatic and practical weight, it does not, in itself, confer or deny statehood or governmental legitimacy under international law. The U.S. "policy of non-recognition" is purely a political tool and cannot serve as legal justification for stripping a country's leader of his or her international legal rights.

President Donald Trump and his officials have repeatedly expressed their desire for Venezuela's oil resources, openly stating their intention to "take back" the oil. This makes the so-called "anti-drug" and "judicial" motives appear weak and implausible. The essence of this action is a regime change disguised as a legal operation, with force as the means and resources and control as the ultimate goal.

The crisis facing global order  

The harm caused by the U.S. action extends far beyond the overthrow of a Latin American regime. It is more like potentially opening Pandora's box, unleashing a series of disastrous consequences that threaten global stability and order. The first and most immediate effect is the unprecedented credibility crisis faced by the multilateral system, centered on the UN. This international body, especially its Security Council, was originally established as the highest institution to maintain international peace and security. However, when one of its permanent members, in this case the U.S., becomes the perpetrator of an act of aggression, the entire mechanism collapses. Due to the U.S.' veto power, it is nearly impossible for the Security Council to pass any resolution that effectively restrains its actions. This makes the UN ineffective in preventing major-power aggression, severely damaging its authority and credibility.

Even more profound and terrifying is the fact that this action sets an extremely harmful precedent for the entire world. It effectively announces that any sufficiently powerful country can disregard the UN Charter, using unilateral will and domestic laws to launch military actions against any sovereign state deemed "unfriendly" or "non-compliant." This "might makes right" logic would completely dismantle the basic norms of international relations. The international community would return to a state based on fear and military coercion, where the sovereignty and security of small and medium-sized nations would become increasingly precarious.

For decades, despite setbacks, the international community has worked to build an order based on rules rather than power, from the International Criminal Court to a web of multilateral treaties, all aimed at creating a fairer, more stable world.

When great powers trample the very rules created for collective security, the result is often systemic collapse—and insecurity for all.

The international community must act swiftly to reaffirm its commitment to multilateralism, the UN Charter and the principles of sovereignty and non-aggression to prevent further erosion of the global legal framework. BR

The author is a research fellow at the Charhar Institute and School of Marxism, Huazhong University of Science and Technology 

Copyedited by Elsbeth van Paridon 

Comments to dingying@cicgamericas.com