Background
On January 3rd, 2026, the Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated on social media that “Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York” and that they will face “the full wrath of American justice on American soil, in American courts”
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were captured and flown out of the country by U.S. forces. The pair are charged with drug and weapons offences in New York, and the two will be tried under U.S. laws as the reports suggest.
The spark of the conflict could be seen for a while now, the most recent case being on December 30th, 2025, when the U.S. targeted three vessels and destroyed them. These vessels were travelling in a convoy in undisclosed international waters, allegedly carrying drugs. Such targeted attacks by the U.S. have been occurring since September 2nd 2025, in the Southern Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific. The U.S. claims that they have been a victim of “narco-terrorists” and that they are retaliating for this crime. U.S. authorities have reported that 105 individuals are dead due to these strikes. Donald Trump has accused the President of Venezuela of being the head of a drug cartel, a “narco-terrorist”, and an illegitimate leader.
Does Drug Smuggling Justify the Use of Armed Force?
In a press conference dated October 31st, 2025, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva mentioned that airstrikes by the U.S. on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, allegedly linked to drug trafficking, violate international human rights law. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, stated that “Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life.”
The U.N. High Commissioner was referring to the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), specifically Principle 9. Which states
“Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”
National policy over International Law: Monroe Doctrine.
President of U.S. mention the “Monroe Doctrine,” a doctrine articulated by President James Monroe in 1823. It was originally intended to counter European colonisation or other interference in the United States of America and the Western Hemisphere at large, and it was also designed to assert the USA’s influence over this part of the world. In simple terms, any intervention in the internal political affairs of the United States by foreign powers is a potentially hostile act against the Nation. The U.S. President used this doctrine to take aggressive action against other sovereign states. Through this doctrine, the U.S. also treats the entire western hemisphere as its backyard itself and has multiple times undermined the sovereignty of other Nations in this sphere and imposed its own personal interests.
Washington has framed its approach as a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting U.S. preeminence in the western hemisphere and reserving the right to use force to enforce it.
Now, the President of the USA might use the Monroe Doctrine to justify his actions, but does the Monroe Doctrine hold any value in international law?
The truth about this doctrine is that it does not have the status of “black-letter law.” The Monroe Doctrine is a statement of national policy rather than a rule of international law.
In fact the Monroe Doctrine goes against United Nations Charter, first being Article 2(1) and (4) of UN Charter which states “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members,” Article 2(4) stating “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.”
The USA has signed the U.N. Charter, thereby agreeing not to use threat or force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and upholding the principle of sovereign equality. However, this doctrine, which treats the Western Hemisphere as a U.S. security zone, tells a different story.
Act of Self Defence or Illegal Use of Force? Under the UN Charter
There are only two exceptions to the above-mentioned Articles: first, authorisation by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII, Article 42 of the U.N. Charter. This article permits the use of force, whether on land, sea, or air, but requires the permission of the Security Council. The second is Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which is the right of self-defence of all U.N. member states against an armed attack.
No U.N. Security Council authorisation exists for the U.S. operations against Venezuelan vessels, and the United States has not demonstrated that it is responding to any armed attack by Venezuela.
Drug trafficking is traditionally seen as transnational organised crime, rather than an act of armed violence attributable to a state in the sense required by Article 51. While its social and economic consequences may be severe, international law does not equate criminal harm with armed attack. Thus, making the strikes on Venezuela’s soil illegal.
Nicaragua v. United States of America, a case where Sovereignty Prevailed
In the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America in the International Court of Justice, I.C.J.(1986)14. In 1984, Nicaragua filed a lawsuit against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice, alleging that the U.S. had violated both the UN Charter and the principles of customary international law. By covertly channelling money, weapons, and other support to the Nicaraguan opposition, therefore interfering with the internal politics of a sovereign nation. Nicaragua asked the I.C.J. to order the U.S. to cease its operations in the country and pay reparations.
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was “in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State”, “not to intervene in its affairs”, “not to violate its sovereignty”, “not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce”, and “in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation”
The Court also rejected the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.
The case established several key legal principles that we can apply to the current crisis to have a better understanding of the legal aspects of the situation. Such as drug trafficking cannot be classified as an “armed attack” under Article 51, therefore, the United States cannot claim self-defence in such cases. Additionally, regime change is a violation of the principle of non-intervention, as outlined in the Nicaragua case. The abduction of the President of Venezuela by the U.S. troops represents a pivotal shift in this regard, a blatant violation of international law and setting principles which might become a trend of exploiting the laws in the name of self-defence.
Conclusion
Today, we live in a world of neoliberal globalisation, where each Nation is interconnected and dependent on one another in various ways. A conflict in one part of the world affects not only the states involved in the conflict but every corner of the globe.
International Law is not à la carte, in which nations can choose which laws are convenient for them to follow and which are too inconvenient to follow. The current circumstances pose a grave concern and a significant challenge to the international community. The recent events have shaken the very foundation of international laws, principles, organisations and treaties.
The Monroe Doctrine is a unilateral policy of the U.S. which has no actual acceptance in International law or the U.N. Charter. It is, on the other hand, against the basic principles of the U.N. Charter.
The U.S. actions in Venezuela have far-reaching consequences and set a dangerous precedent that other global powers might follow. Actions which may be solely based on personal interests and not aligned with international laws.
Subsequently, the U.S. have also announced the decision to withdraw from sixty-six international organisations, which will further weaken global institutions.
The U.S. holds a special place in the international community, having maintained a standard for other nations for the longest period in modern times, and as the hegemonic power, it also influences many multinational organisations. The actions by the U.S. have shed light on the cracks in the international community, some of which have been present for a long time, while others are being created by the U.S. These very cracks can be exploited by other nations for their own national interests. Destroying the international order, peace, and stability.
Leave a Reply