Were the US actions in Venezuela legal under international law? An expert explains

The alleged US actions in Venezuela, particularly the reported operation targeting President Nicolás Maduro, represent a critical case study in international law and state sovereignty, drawing significant attention from legal experts and the global community. At its core, the controversy revolves around the potential breach of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, a foundational principle of international relations.

**Background Context:**

Venezuela has been embroiled in a deep political and economic crisis for several years. President Nicolás Maduro's legitimacy has been challenged by a significant portion of the international community, including the United States, which recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the interim president in January 2019. The US, along with several other nations, cited concerns over the fairness of the 2018 presidential elections, human rights abuses, and the erosion of democratic institutions under Maduro's rule. This led to a series of escalating US sanctions targeting Venezuela's vital oil industry, government officials, and financial institutions, aimed at pressuring Maduro to step down. Amidst this backdrop of intense diplomatic pressure and economic warfare, reports emerged of alleged covert operations or support for efforts aimed at regime change, including the specific operation involving the capture of President Maduro.

**What Happened and Key Stakeholders:**

The article refers to an 'operation, which involved the capture of President Maduro,' highlighting the seriousness of the alleged actions. While specific details of such an operation are often shrouded in secrecy, the implication is a direct attempt to physically remove a sitting head of state. The **United States government**, under the Trump administration at the time, was a primary stakeholder, openly advocating for Maduro's departure and supporting the opposition. Its stated objectives included restoring democracy, combating corruption, and addressing humanitarian concerns in Venezuela. The **Venezuelan government**, led by President Maduro, vehemently denounced these actions as illegal foreign interference, a violation of its sovereignty, and an attempt at a coup d'état. The **Venezuelan opposition**, led by figures like Juan Guaidó, sought international backing, including from the US, to achieve a transition of power. The **United Nations** and its **Charter** serve as the bedrock of international law, making them central to the debate. Finally, **international law experts** and various nations form another crucial stakeholder group, offering diverse interpretations of the legality and implications of such interventions.

**Legality under International Law and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:**

The core of the legal debate lies in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which 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." This article is a cornerstone of modern international law, designed to prevent aggressive wars and protect state sovereignty. An operation involving the capture of a sitting head of state, particularly without the explicit consent of the UN Security Council or a clear case of self-defense (Article 51), would be widely considered a direct use of force against the political independence and territorial integrity of Venezuela. Such an act would constitute a grave breach of customary international law and the UN Charter. Even if conducted by non-state actors with state backing, the principle of non-intervention (Article 2(7)) would be violated.

**Significance for India:**

For India, this issue carries profound significance across multiple dimensions. **Firstly, on foreign policy**, India has historically been a strong proponent of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, a principle deeply rooted in its non-aligned movement ethos and the Panchsheel principles (1954). This stance is reflected in **Article 51 of the Indian Constitution**, which, as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates the state to "promote international peace and security; maintain just and honourable relations between nations; foster respect for international law and treaty obligations..." Any action that undermines state sovereignty and the UN Charter directly challenges India's core foreign policy tenets and its vision for a rules-based international order. **Secondly, energy security** is a concern; Venezuela possesses the world's largest proven oil reserves. US sanctions and political instability directly impact global oil prices and supply chains, affecting India, a major oil importer. Historically, India has been a significant buyer of Venezuelan crude. **Thirdly, multilateralism and global governance** are at stake. India consistently advocates for a stronger, more effective UN and a multilateral system that upholds international law. Breaches of the UN Charter weaken these institutions, making the world less predictable and stable, which is detrimental to India's interests as a rising global power that relies on a stable international environment for its growth and influence.

**Historical Context and Future Implications:**

The alleged US actions resonate with a long history of US interventionism in Latin America, often justified under the Monroe Doctrine (1823) or various anti-communist or pro-democracy pretexts during the Cold War. From the overthrow of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala (1954) to interventions in Chile (1973) and Nicaragua, the region has frequently been a theatre for great power politics. Such historical precedents highlight the recurring tension between a powerful nation's perceived interests and the sovereign rights of smaller states. Looking ahead, if such actions become more prevalent or are seen as permissible, it could lead to a severe **erosion of international law** and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. This would set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging other powerful nations to unilaterally intervene in the internal affairs of weaker states, leading to increased global instability and conflict. It also raises fundamental questions about the future of **multilateralism** and the effectiveness of international institutions in upholding global peace and security. The ongoing debate about the limits of state sovereignty versus the responsibility to protect (R2P) and humanitarian intervention will continue to be shaped by such events, posing complex challenges for international relations and legal frameworks.

In conclusion, the Venezuela situation underscores the fragility of international peace when core principles of sovereignty and non-intervention are tested. For India, upholding these principles is not merely an ideological stance but a strategic imperative for a stable, rules-based global order conducive to its national interests.