The US military operation of January 3 in Venezuela, which culminated in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife by the US army, without any authorization from the UN Security Council, opened a deep fracture in the international legal order. Washington talks about the fight against drug trafficking and “indefinite” pressure, specifying that it does not want to deploy ground troops. But the absence of a military occupation does not change the substance of the facts.
“We are faced with a clear violation of international law,” explains Francesca De Vittor, international law researcher at the Catholic University of Milan. “The United States has conducted a military operation on the territory of another state with its own army: this is the very definition of an act of aggression, even if so far there has been no military occupation of the soil.” The point, he clarifies, is not Maduro’s political legitimacy, but the legal principle: «He was the president of that state. Regardless of the judgment on his government, there was an armed intervention on Venezuelan territory.”
The Trump administration claims the ability to “rewrite the rules”, but the global legal system does not work for unilateral acts. «The rules change only if there is a constant practice shared by the States, accompanied by the belief that that practice is legally obligatory: diuturnitas and opinio iuris are needed», recalls De Vittor. «By violating a rule you don’t change it. Putin did not rewrite international law by invading Ukraine, and neither does the United States today.”
The cardinal provision violated is Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. «It is one of the fundamental principles of the UN», underlines De Vittor. «And it is customary international law, as well as a binding rule: non-derogable, prevailing over other rules. The use of force against another state is the violation of violations.”
The only exception provided for by the Charter is self-defense, enshrined in Article 51. But the conditions are stringent. “It is only permitted as a response to an armed attack that has already been launched,” explains the jurist. «Otherwise it would be too easy: each state could invoke a future threat to act militarily. Venezuela did not attack the United States, so we cannot speak of legitimate defense.”
Not even the justification linked to drug trafficking holds up on a legal level. «The fight against drug trafficking is done with police cooperation, not with a military operation aimed at taking the president of another state»observes De Vittor. «International law provides different instruments. The use of force is not the solution. Napoleon said that with bayonets you can do everything except sit on them.”
Even the threat of force constitutes a violation of international law, as in the case of the statements on Greenland. “The threat legitimizes a reaction, but only a peaceful one,” he specifies. «When a State feels threatened it can strengthen its defenses on its territory, respecting sovereignty, and activate diplomatic tools». The global legal framework also allows the use of non-military measures: political pressure, negotiation initiatives, economic sanctions and trade restrictions, which are among the peaceful means of preventing and managing disputes. “The threat, as long as it remains a threat, does not authorize the use of force,” he clarifies. “It serves to legitimize responses that avoid escalation, not that anticipate it.” Since 2019, Denmark has reaffirmed its sovereignty over Greenland, which “is not a colony, but an integral part of the Danish state with broad autonomy”.
Many observers speak of a return to the Monroe Doctrine and of Latin America as the “backyard” of the USA. But from a legal point of view the reference is groundless. “The Monroe doctrine has no recognition in international law,” says the jurist. «Sovereign states are all equally sovereign. San Marino and the United States have the same vote in the UN General Assembly.”
The reactions of other states have been mixed. «Almost all Latin American states have spoken of a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty. China and Russia have openly condemned it, although Putin’s reaction may raise a smile given that he tells Trump not to do what he is doing to Ukraine”, he observes. The European Union is more cautious: initially timid, more clear-cut after targeting Greenland, the territory of a member state. The Greenland match is based on the need to provide Ukraine with security guarantees against Russia as part of a peace plan, and here the American commitment will be fundamental. “Convicting or not remains a political choice, dictated by maintaining certain strategic balances, even if it cannot be shared,” he explains. «But global rules prohibit states from supporting those who violate the prohibition on the use of force. Let’s think about Israel: all the support that was given by countries like Italy was a violation of international law, of various principles including that of the self-determination of the Palestinian people.” The conclusion is clear: «The message must not be conveyed that when a State has an interest in expanding onto the territory of another State it can do so, otherwise we will throw away everything we built after the Second World War».
The role of the UN has come under scrutiny again. “The UN is made up of states,” he recalls. «In the Security Council the veto paralyzes decisions when permanent members are involved. But before saying that it is no longer needed, let’s remember what existed before the UN: two world wars.” The greatest risk, concludes De Vittor, is systemic: «If the principle of the prohibition of the use of force is weakened, we will throw away the architecture built after the Second World War. And it is a price that the world cannot afford.”
