The United States’ military intervention in Venezuela recently has sparked intense debate within the international community, particularly regarding its legality under international law. The operation, which resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his transfer to the United States to face criminal charges, represents one of the most direct uses of force by a major power against a sovereign state in recent decades. While the U.S. government framed the intervention as a necessary law-enforcement action against alleged narcotics trafficking and authoritarian governance, many states, legal scholars, and international organizations argue that the action constitutes a clear violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and the foundational principles of international law.

At the center of this controversy lies the principle of state sovereignty, which is a cornerstone of the modern international legal order. Sovereignty grants state exclusive authority over their territory and domestic affairs, free from external interference. This principle is constituted in the United Nations Charter, particularly in Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Additionally, Article 2(7) restricts intervention in matters that fall within a state’s domestic jurisdiction. Together, these provisions aim to prevent unilateral military actions and preserve international peace and stability. Both the United States and Venezuela are members of the United Nations and are therefore bound by these legal obligations.

International law recognizes only two narrow exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force: self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and actions authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. In the case of Venezuela, neither exception appears to apply. Venezuela did not carry out an armed attack against the United States, nor was there evidence of an imminent threat that could justify anticipatory self-defense. Furthermore, the UN Security Council did not authorize the intervention. As a result, most international law experts conclude that the U.S. action lacks a valid legal basis under the Charter framework. The manner in which the operation was conducted further strengthens the argument that it constituted an unlawful use of force. U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan territory and the forcible removal of a sitting head of state directly interfered with Venezuela’s political independence. Such actions go beyond diplomatic pressure or economic sanctions and cross into the realm of armed intervention. The United Nations Secretary-General and several UN bodies expressed concern that the operation undermined the international legal order and risked normalizing unilateral uses of force by powerful states.

In addition to violating the UN Charter, the intervention arguably breached regional legal norms. The Charter of the Organization of American States emphasizes the inviolability of state sovereignty and explicitly prohibits military intervention and occupation. Latin American states have historically been sensitive to foreign intervention due to their colonial and post-colonial experiences, and many governments in the region condemned the U.S. action as a dangerous precedent that threatens regional stability and legal norms of non-intervention. Another significant legal issue raised by the intervention is the question of head-of-state immunity. Under customary international law, sitting heads of state enjoy immunity from arrest and prosecution by foreign states. This immunity exists to ensure stable international relations and to protect the sovereign equality of states. By capturing and prosecuting President Maduro without the consent of Venezuela or an international mandate, the United States appears to have violated this long-established rule. While international criminal tribunals may exercise jurisdiction over heads of state in limited circumstances, domestic courts generally cannot do so without breaching international law.

The U.S. government attempted to justify its actions by characterizing the operation as a law-enforcement measure rather than a military intervention, citing criminal indictments against Maduro for drug trafficking and terrorism-related offenses. Supporters of this argument point to historical precedents, such as the U.S. intervention in Panama in 1989, as justification. However, many legal scholars reject this reasoning, emphasizing that international law does not permit states to use military force in another sovereign country simply to enforce domestic criminal law. Transnational crime, while serious, does not meet the threshold of an armed attack required to invoke self-defense under Article 51. The broader implications of the intervention extend beyond Venezuela itself. If powerful states are allowed to unilaterally remove foreign leaders under the pretext of law enforcement or moral justification, the prohibition on the use of force risks becoming meaningless. Smaller and weaker states would be particularly vulnerable, undermining the principle of sovereign equality that underpins the international system. Human rights organizations and legal institutions have warned that such actions erode trust in international law and weaken the collective security framework designed to prevent conflict.

In conclusion, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela raises serious and unresolved concerns under international law. The use of force without UN authorization or a valid self-defense claim, the violation of territorial sovereignty, and the disregard for head-of-state immunity collectively suggest that the operation was unlawful. While the United States may argue that its actions were motivated by concerns over crime, democracy, or regional security, international law prioritizes the maintenance of peace, sovereignty, and legal restraint. The Venezuelan case thus stands as a troubling example of how unilateral action can challenge the very legal norms intended to govern relations between states and prevent the abuse of power in the international system.