US Military Intervention in Venezuela

Source: The Hindu

Introduction 

The US military operation in Venezuela, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, represents a watershed moment that challenges the foundations of post-1945 international order. By capturing President Nicolás Maduro, his wife Cilia Flores, and senior officials under a revived "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, the United States has committed what amounts to a gigantic affront to international law. This action, following a series of illegal American strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats in the Caribbean Sea, raises profound questions about sovereignty, the use of force, head of state immunity, and the future of the multipolar world order. 

The Violation of International Law 

The UN Charter Prohibition on Force: 

• It is axiomatic that Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter proscribes the use of force in international relations. This prohibition, as scholars like Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro argue, outlawed war and fundamentally reshaped international law, making aggressive war an illegitimate instrument for settling disputes. Article 2(4) permits only two narrow exceptions: force may be used in self-defense under Article 51—only in response to an armed attack, subject to necessity and proportionality—or with UN Security Council authorization under Articles 24 and 25. Neither exception applies to the Venezuelan case. 
• However, none of these justifications—even if factually accurate—legally permits using force against a sovereign state. Capturing a foreigner, let alone a head of state, on foreign territory without genuine state consent or legal procedures, and physically bringing them before a domestic court, constitutes an internationally wrongful act reminiscent of naked imperialism. 

Head of State Immunity: 

• The case raises critical legal issues regarding President Maduro's status. As the International Court of Justice held in the Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of the Congo vs Belgium), heads of state enjoy inviolability and immunity ratione personae (personal immunity) from foreign criminal jurisdiction. Accordingly, US courts lack jurisdiction to try President Maduro for alleged activities conducted in his official capacity. 
• Arguments that Maduro is not legitimate because of rigged elections, or that the US does not recognize him, carry no weight under international law. What matters is the test of effective control. The Maduro administration exercised effective control over Venezuelan territory, entitling him to immunity. Holding otherwise would grant states license to deny immunity based on subjective criteria, wreaking havoc in the international legal system and violating sovereign equality principles enshrined in the UN Charter. 

US Motivations for Intervention 

The Narco-terrorism Narrative: 

• The US charged Maduro with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, linking the Venezuelan regime to the American fentanyl crisis. This narrative provided legal-political justification, framing the operation as law enforcement rather than regime change. 

Energy Geopolitics: 

• Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven crude oil reserves—over 300 billion barrels, approximately one-fifth of global proven reserves—yet accounts for less than one percent of global production due to sanctions, economic crisis, and infrastructure decay. The US views control over Venezuelan oil as critical for energy security, price stability, and strategic leverage in global energy markets. 

Countering Extra-Regional Powers: 

• Venezuela's deepening relationships with China, Russia, and Iran—involving Chinese infrastructure investment, Russian military equipment, and Iranian fuel supplies—fundamentally challenged US primacy in the Western Hemisphere, prompting Washington to reassert dominance through direct military action. This intervention signals to other regional states the consequences of aligning with US adversaries. 

Implications for India and the Global South 

Limited Economic Impact: 

• According to the Global Trade Research Initiative, the conflict will have negligible impact on India's trade, as bilateral commerce had already collapsed under sanctions. India's exports to Venezuela stood at just USD 95.3 million in FY2025, while crude oil imports fell 81.3 percent to USD 255.3 million. However, if sanctions are eventually eased, discounted Venezuelan crude could re-enter markets, strengthening India's supply diversification and bargaining power with West Asian suppliers. 

Strategic Autonomy Challenges: 

• India has consistently advocated for non-interventionism and regime change through democratic processes rather than external military force. The US action significantly complicates India's diplomatic balancing between the Global South—which opposes such interventions—and its strategic partnership with Washington. For India, which has invested considerable capital in promoting a multipolar world order based on sovereign equality, the Venezuelan intervention represents a troubling precedent suggesting powerful states may increasingly resort to unilateral action. 

Strengthening International Law 

The Compliance Crisis: 

• As public international law scholar Marko Milonevic argues, the problem lies not with the substantive content of law but with the complete lack of commitment to comply with it.  
• The meteoric rise of authoritarian regimes, including in countries once regarded as liberal democracies, means governments increasingly refuse constraint by domestic or international law.  
• The weakening of domestic rule of law has negatively impacted international law's efficacy in constraining power. 

The Path Forward: 

• To strengthen the international rule of law, we must simultaneously bolster domestic rule of law and democracy.  
• While powerful nations use international law to perpetuate dominance, several elements—particularly Article 2(4)—are antithetical to authoritarianism. Authoritarian regimes will continue assaulting these norms and treating international law with derision. Therefore, democratic forces globally must unite to resist them with renewed resolve. 
• The US actions create a precarious precedent as part of a series of flagrant violations of international law observed in recent years.  
• The larger question is whether the international community will collectively resist such violations and defend sovereignty principles, or whether the intervention will succeed in establishing a new norm of great power prerogative. 

Conclusion 

The US intervention in Venezuela represents not merely violation of specific legal provisions but a fundamental challenge to the post-1945 order built on sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and prohibition of aggressive war. The invocation of the antiquated Monroe Doctrine is an affront not just to Western Hemisphere sovereignty but to the anti-imperial struggles of Third World peoples. 

For the international community, particularly Global South nations that have historically suffered from such interventions, the Venezuelan case demands unified defense of principles protecting all states from arbitrary power exercises.