The recent military operation conducted by the US in Venezuela, resulting in Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro being taken into US custody and presented before the US legal system, has triggered serious international controversy. Beyond the immediate political shockwaves, the incident raises fundamental questions about international laws and legal order, the limits of state power, and the responsibilities of global actors, particularly those entrusted with upholding international peace and security.
In Sri Lanka, several civil society organisations have strongly opposed the US action, with some even launching public protests. Their main argument is that neither the US nor its President Donald Trump has the right to intervene militarily in a sovereign State in such a manner. The Sri Lankan Government has also expressed deep concerns over these developments, reiterating the need to respect international law and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.
At the core of this controversy is the principle of state sovereignty. Sovereignty is a cornerstone of international law, guaranteeing a state’s authority over its internal affairs without external interference. The removal or detention of a sitting head of state through a foreign military operation constitutes a grave challenge to this principle. Regardless of political disagreements with a Government, international law does not permit one state to unilaterally undermine another’s sovereign authority without lawful justification.
The operation has also highlighted concerns about unilateralism in global governance. When powerful states act independently of multilateral frameworks, they weaken the rules-based international system. Unilateral actions, particularly those involving military force, set dangerous precedents, especially when undertaken by states with vast military and political influence. Such conduct risks normalising the bypassing of collective decision-making processes that are essential for global stability.
The UN Charter clearly prohibits the use of force against another state, especially in defined circumstances such as self-defence. In this case, no UN Security Council (SC) authorisation was granted. On the contrary, reports indicate the SC did not approve, and that it has now opposed the action. The absence of international approval places the legality of the operation in serious doubt.
The gravity of the situation is further worsened by the fact the US is a permanent member of the UN SC. Such states carry a special responsibility to uphold international peace and security. Acting outside the SC’s framework not only contradicts this responsibility but also erodes the credibility of the very institution that is meant to prevent unilateral military actions.
Closely linked to sovereignty is the principle of non-intervention. International law restricts states from intervening in the internal affairs of others, particularly when there is no express request or consent from the relevant state. Venezuela did not request such an intervention. In the absence of consent or multilateral approval, external military involvement amounts to unlawful interference.
The US has justified its actions by citing alleged narco-terrorism and security threats emanating from Venezuela and allegedly supported by Maduro. However, at the international level, such claims require concrete evidence. General criminal activity does not necessarily constitute self-defence. International law demands proof of necessity, proportionality, and also an imminent threat. Without clear and convincing evidence of such a threat, military action cannot be legally justified. Needless to say, reports of civilian casualties further complicate the legality and morality of the operation.
If the US had genuine concerns regarding narco-terrorism or transnational crime, it could have pursued remedies through established international mechanisms. Existing treaties, extradition processes and multilateral legal forums provide lawful ways to address such issues.
The unfolding situation in Venezuela risks creating governance instability particularly with the country’s President no longer functioning in office. The UN must play a key role in managing this situation while it prioritises the safety, wellbeing and sovereign rights of the Venezuelan people. Sri Lanka, consistent with its stated position, should continue to monitor developments closely and contribute where possible to efforts aimed at restoring stability in that country.
The UN, in this case, appears to show a lethargic approach, which some may even interpret as double standards, selective compliance and hypocrisy. While it has issued statements, it does not seem as proactive or enthusiastic as it is in the case of Sri Lanka regarding alleged war crimes or in the Russia-Ukraine conflict concerning Russia’s actions. The UN should take concrete and strong action against the US as well.