Why do U.S. strikes on Venezuela undermine the UN Charter?
The most threatening activity related to the latest attacks perpetrated by the U.S. within Venezuelan territory is neither the weaponry used nor the impact generated, but the precedent established. Thus, in an action of great proportions, the United States proceeded with what it called a “large-scale strike” within Venezuelan territory, culminating in the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who are said to have been airlifted out of the country.
Fundamentally, it seems to be a violation of the United Nations Charter, signed in October 1945, to prevent another conflict on the scale of the Second World War. One of its leading provisions, Article 2(4), obliges states to avoid the use or threat of military force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. The intervention by the U.S. therefore raises urgent legal questions regarding whether, in a world that apparently lives by international law, unilateral forces can still be justified.
.@antonioguterres deeply alarmed by escalation in Venezuela, culminating with US military action today.
— United Nations (@UN) January 3, 2026
He’s concerned that international law hasn't been respected.
He calls on all actors in Venezuela to engage in inclusive dialogue, in respect of human rights & rule of law.
What does international law actually allow states to do?
Following global devastation in 1945, the international community agreed to the following basic but universal compulsory principle: The use of force could be allowed in two instances. The first is self-defense in the event of an armed attack. The second is if the United Nations Security Council mandates the use of force to maintain international peace and security.
Os bombardeios em território venezuelano e a captura do seu presidente ultrapassam uma linha inaceitável. Esses atos representam uma afronta gravíssima à soberania da Venezuela e mais um precedente extremamente perigoso para toda a comunidade internacional.
— Lula (@LulaOficial) January 3, 2026
Atacar países, em…
This is enshrined in article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which says all members shall refrain in the use or threat of force against the political independence or territorial integrity of another state. Furthermore, article 51 qualifies the principle by stating that even the right to defend oneself is contingent or temporary, as one has to submit its actions to the Security Council.
El Gobierno de la República de Colombia observa con profunda preocupación los reportes sobre explosiones y actividad aérea inusual registrados en las últimas horas en la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, así como la consecuente escalada de tensión en la región.
— Gustavo Petro (@petrogustavo) January 3, 2026
Colombia…
These are intended to ensure that the most powerful nations are also bound by the rule of law. The non-use of force is mandatory, and its application is not subject to political convenience.
China is deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the U.S.’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president.
— CHINA MFA Spokesperson 中国外交部发言人 (@MFA_China) January 3, 2026
Such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin… pic.twitter.com/wjfRMhvNKP
Does the Venezuela operation fit within these legal limits?
The Venezuelan strikes by U.S. forces ignore widely recognized norms. Venezuela did not attack the United States with force arms. The U.S. forces also did not gain approval for the use of force from the United Nations Security Council. Legally considered, the strikes disregard international law.
MEDIA STATEMENT | South Africa Urges UN Security Council Session Following Unilateral Military Action in Venezuela pic.twitter.com/VNuKVZ2QpA
— DIRCO South Africa (@DIRCO_ZA) January 3, 2026
This assessment has been echoed at the highest levels of the UN. Secretary-General António Guterres stated that “the rules of international law have not been respected,” underscoring the seriousness of the breach. The issue, therefore, is not one of interpretation but of clear legal incompatibility with the UN Charter.
Is state sovereignty conditional or absolute?
The second principle that the Syrian case undercuts is the idea of sovereignty. In international law, sovereignty is never considered a right to which great nations can grant or withhold their consent. On the contrary, it is a right that all nations enjoy equally. This principle ensures that political change within a state results from internal processes as opposed to external force.
The current state of international law does not recognize the practice of regime change under status can, no matter how unacceptable a regime turns out to be. When powerful states ignore such laws, norms become exceptions, and violations redefine what can be classified as “acceptable” behavior.
Can criminal accusations justify military force?
Washington has sought to rationalize these actions through allegations made against the Venezuelan government, among them “narco-terrorism” and conspiracy to traffic cocaine. There remains a distinction between criminal acts and armed conflict under international law.
Crime in any form, however grave it may be, cannot be considered as a possible cause for war. This would mean that nobody can ever feel secure as terrorism, cyber crime, political extremism, or even drug trafficking become the potential rationale for invasion. This would amount to abrogation of international law rather than its administration.
Has the world seen this justification before?
This is far from the first instance. In 2003, America invaded and occupied Iraq on grounds that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was found to be untrue. Today, Venezuela is facing invasion and bombing due to accusations of being involved in international drug trafficking and conspiracy.
Once again, the claims are regarded as substitutes for UN authorization. The problem is not just with what is happening, but with what is being institutionalized—that is, the practice of acting first and justifying afterwards without legal authorization.
What sanctions could the U.S. realistically face?
In theory, the mechanism exists in the UN Security Council to impose sanctions for maintaining international peace, which includes trade restrictions, arms embargos, and travel restrictions. In practice, this mechanism is inadequate for a permanent member state.
The United States, like China, Russia, the UK, and France, enjoys veto power. Sanctioning the United States can be vetoed completely. According to observations by legal experts, a state can disregard international law by simply vetoing a resolution against it.
Such a condition betrays a flaw in the very structure of the Security Council. The international body charged with enforcing international law, if it cannot take a stand against its most powerful constituents, lacks integral credibility.
Is international law the real casualty of this strike?
International law was never meant to be at the service of the powerful. It was meant to govern them. Now, this principle itself comes directly under threat. The move on Venezuela by the U.S. stands not merely for a geopolitical shift, but for a legal break in the entire post-war system.
⚡️ The US committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela, which gives rise to deep concern & warrants condemnation.
— MFA Russia 🇷🇺 (@mfa_russia) January 3, 2026
The pretexts used to justify these actions are untenable.
Russia reaffirms its solidarity with the Venezuelan people.https://t.co/vDNHsbKxB9 pic.twitter.com/jZ50V4SLYB
The international community needs to be aware that the absence of any response to such violations does not serve the purpose of preserving stability but ends up re-writing the rule book by default itself. Unless nations are made to clearly understand that the threat or use of force without UN sanction is prohibited regardless of the country that exercises the threat or use of force, the UN charter would become an empty piece of paper.
