Protests broke out in the United States and internationally following President Donald Trump’s decision to order a military attack on Venezuela that included bombing inside Venezuelan territory and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro. As condemnation spread, international law experts issued detailed legal assessments concluding that the operation violated core principles of international law and lacked any recognized legal justification.
In an analysis published by Just Security, three international law scholars explained why the Venezuela operation differed legally from other recent U.S. military actions. Michael Schmitt of the University of Reading, Ryan Goodman of New York University, and Tess Bridgeman of the NYU Reiss Center on Law and Security wrote that dozens of U.S. strikes carried out in recent months occurred in international waters against stateless vessels. The attack on Venezuela, they noted, took place within the borders of a sovereign state.
The scholars concluded that the early morning operation “is clearly a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.” They wrote that the prohibition “is the bedrock rule of the international system that separates the rule of law from anarchy, safeguards small states from their more powerful neighbors, and protects civilians from the devastation of war.”
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, to which both the United States and Venezuela are parties, states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman directly rejected the Trump administration’s justification that the attack was necessary to protect Americans from drug trafficking. For Trump’s claims to be valid under international law, they wrote, “the drug activity must be characterized as an ‘armed attack’ against the United States.” They concluded that “Drug trafficking simply does not qualify as, and has never been considered, an ‘armed attack.’”
“It is indisputable that drug trafficking is condemnable criminal activity, but it is not the type of activity that triggers the right of self-defense in international law,” the authors continued. They added that any alleged involvement by Maduro’s government in the drug trade does not rise “to the level of an armed attack against the United States,” explaining that the connection between drug trafficking and harm in the U.S. is “far too attenuated” to meet the legal threshold for self-defense.
The scholars further concluded that the operation, referred to by the administration as “Operation Absolute Resolve,” “amounts to an unlawful intervention into Venezuela’s internal affairs.” They rejected claims by U.S. officials that the seizure of Maduro was a law enforcement action rather than an act of war.
“The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government,” they wrote. The authors explained that even though the U.S. does not recognize the Maduro government as legitimate, international law looks to which authority exercises “effective control” over territory. In Venezuela’s case, they wrote, that authority lies with officials in the Maduro administration.
As a sitting head of state, Maduro is also protected from foreign enforcement jurisdiction under customary international law. Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman wrote that Maduro may be considered a prisoner of war due to his role as commander in chief of Venezuela’s armed forces and would therefore be “entitled to the extensive protections of the Third Geneva Convention.” His wife, they added, is “entitled to a robust set of protections afforded to captured civilians” under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The analysis reinforced statements by other international legal experts. Ben Saul on human rights and counterterrorism condemned Trump’s “illegal aggression against Venezuela and the illegal abduction of its leader and his wife.” Saul said the president “should be impeached and investigated for the alleged killings” of Venezuelans during the attack. “Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life,” he said.
An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was held following the attack. Writing at the Conversation, Australian National University international law professor Sarah Heathcote emphasized that the Security Council had not authorized the use of force. She wrote that such authorization, consent from Venezuela’s government, or a valid claim of self-defense would have been required for the operation to be lawful.
Instead, Heathcote concluded that “the U.S. intervention in Venezuela was as brazen and unlawful as its military strike on Iran in June last year.” Addressing claims that international law no longer carries weight, she wrote, “But international law is not ‘dead’ just because the most powerful no longer respect it.” She added, “To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur, including in the current instance.”
At the Security Council meeting, UN Secretary General António Guterres stressed the need for adherence to international legal frameworks. He emphasized “the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Acknowledging Venezuela’s internal instability, Guterres said, “In situations as confused and complex as the one we now face, it is important to stick to principles. Respect for the UN Charter and all other applicable legal frameworks to safeguard peace and security.”
“International law contains tools to address issues such as illicit traffic in narcotics, disputes about resources, and human rights concerns,” Guterres added. “This is the route we need to take.”
Domestic legal concerns were also raised in the United States. Democratic lawmakers questioned the lack of congressional authorization for the attack. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that “there was no imminent threat to the United States,” and “certainly not one that justified military action without congressional authorization.” He said the actions violated both U.S. and international law.
Legal scholar Claire Finkelstein of the University of Pennsylvania echoed those concerns in comments to Al Jazeera. “I don’t think there’s any basis under international law for the action that occurred overnight by the U.S. government,” she said, calling the attack an “illegal use of force [and] a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty.” She also rejected Trump’s proposal for the United States to “run” Venezuela during a political transition, calling it “incredibly illegal.”
“States have sovereignty rights, and you cannot just invade them and take them over,” Finkelstein said. “Even if Maduro were to fall of his own accord and we had not brought that about, we don’t have the right to go in and start running their government.”
Across legal analyses, UN statements, and congressional responses, experts consistently concluded that the Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela lacked legal justification and violated established international norms. As Guterres told the Security Council, adherence to the UN Charter and international law remains essential “to safeguard peace and security.”
COMMENTS