INTERNATIONAL LAW ON TRIAL; INTERROGATING UNITED STATES AGGRESSION AGAINST VENEZUELA, SEIZURE OF A SITTING PRESIDENT AND IMPLICATIONS

Abstract

The United Nations system generally prohibits the use of armed force by member states in the settlement of international disputes. However, the United States’ military operation against Venezuela on 3 January 2026, which led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, under the guise of an enforcement operation, necessitates this study. Adopting a doctrinal methodology, the paper interrogates the doctrine of the use of force as enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. It further examines the principles of sovereign equality of states, recognition of governments, and the personal immunity accorded to a sitting head of state.

The study argues that the military operation, code-named Operation Absolute Resolve, allegedly carried out under the justification of self-defence, constitutes a violation of the provisions of the UN Charter relating to non-intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of Venezuela. It further contends that the operation amounted to a breach of Venezuela’s right to self-determination. The findings reveal that the United States, acting under the directive of President Donald Trump, carried out an act of aggression against Venezuela without authorisation from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), thereby violating established norms of international law. 

The paper recommends, among other measures, the reform of the United Nations veto system through the removal or limitation of the absolute veto power, which has increasingly become an obstacle to the effective maintenance of international peace and security. It concludes by warning that persistent violations of the UN Charter, if left unsanctioned, could heighten global tensions and pose serious threats to international peace and stability.