Maduro’s capture tests international law, exposing gaps in enforcement and raising fears of a dangerous global precedent.
A UN flag flies outside headquarters as world leaders debate the legality of the US operation in Venezuela (Photo: File)
The US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has brought into focus an international debate that transcends politics and individuals. It has brought international law into sharp focus. The international order has been based on certain constraints of forceful power that were codified in the UN Charter since 1945. This international order remains in force because 193 countries subscribe to it. However, it faces a serious threat in the form of the world's mightiest military.
The use of force is codified under international law. The use of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations by all member states of the United Nations prohibits the use of military force by a country against the sovereignty of another country, unless it is carried out as a matter of self-defence which can only be done with the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Less than 20 military interventions have been sanctioned by the Security Council since the founding of the United Nations and it did not include the Venezuela operation. It is argued by international jurists that lack of recognized leadership status as well as charges of criminal conduct of a country may not be a reason for use of military intervention against it.
No, under international law, the US is not allowed to capture a sitting foreign president without UN authorization or the host country’s consent, as it violates sovereignty and the UN Charter.
Washington has described the move as a law enforcement operation. US authorities claim that Maduro is indicted for drug trafficking offences with regard to a minimum of 2,000 metric tons of cocaine a year, as estimated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The US government feels that extraordinary cases call for extraordinary measures. Interestingly, the opinions of Trump regarding taking control of Venezuela for a temporary period and safeguarding economic ventures seem to add a new dimension to this perception of the extraordinary measures.
On paper, the UN Security Council can impose sanctions ranging from trade bans to arms embargoes. Historically, over 30 countries have faced such measures since 1990. In reality, the US is one of five permanent members with veto power since 1946, the veto has been used more than 300 times, often shielding powerful states from accountability. As a result, any formal UN sanctions against Washington are highly unlikely.
The United States has 31 NATO allies and dozens of strategic partners worldwide and many depend on international law to protect their own security. A 2023 Pew survey showed that over 60 percent of citizens in allied countries value adherence to global rules over unilateral action. Allies now face pressure to balance loyalty to Washington with commitments to international norms, a tension that could strain alliances already tested by recent conflicts.
Since 2000, the number of unilateral military actions worldwide has increased by nearly 40%, according to conflict databases. If the Venezuela operation goes unchallenged, experts warn it could embolden other powers to bypass international institutions altogether. In an era marked by disputes over Taiwan, Ukraine and the Middle East, the erosion of restraint could prove destabilizing.
