7 January 2026
By Publisher Ray Carmen
History does not always arrive with ceremony.
Sometimes it breaks in the dead of night — through reports of military action, arrests, and unilateral decisions that test the very foundations of international order.
In the opening days of 2026, the world awoke to extraordinary reports concerning a United States operation involving Venezuela — an action that, if carried out as described, raises one overriding question that transcends politics, ideology, and personality:
Was it legal?
This article does not debate whether Venezuela’s leadership is popular or unpopular.
It does not weigh political preferences or moral justifications.
It examines something far more consequential: whether a powerful state can lawfully use force inside another sovereign nation without international authorisation — and what it means for the rest of the world if it can.
The Bedrock of International Law: Sovereignty
The modern international legal system rests on a principle forged from the ashes of the Second World War: state sovereignty.
Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is prohibited, except in two narrowly defined circumstances:
-
Self-defence in response to an armed attack, or
-
Explicit authorisation by the United Nations Security Council
These are not optional guidelines. They are the legal pillars designed to prevent global chaos.
Absent either condition, military intervention — including the seizure, removal, or detention of a sitting head of state — is widely regarded as unlawful under international law.
Is There a Lawful Justification?
As of this writing, no publicly available evidence confirms:
-
A United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the use of force
-
An imminent armed attack on the United States by Venezuela
-
A mandate issued by an internationally recognised tribunal
If these conditions are not met, the action risks qualifying as an act of aggression under international legal standards.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, while not recognised by all states, defines aggression as the use of armed force by one state against the sovereignty or political independence of another. This definition reflects broad international consensus and continues to shape how legality is assessed worldwide.
Why This Matters Beyond Venezuela
If one nation can:
-
Enter another sovereign state
-
Remove or detain its leadership
-
Justify the act unilaterally
then the concept of sovereignty itself becomes conditional.
Today it may be Venezuela.
Tomorrow it could be any nation deemed politically inconvenient, strategically useful, or economically attractive.
International law exists precisely to prevent this reality — to ensure that power is restrained by rules, not liberated from them.
The Precedent Problem
Legal scholars have long warned that selective adherence to international law erodes the entire system.
When rules apply only to the weak and exemptions are reserved for the powerful, the global order reverts to something dangerously familiar:
Might makes right.
History offers no shortage of examples showing where that path leads — and none of them end in stability.
A Defining Moment for the Legal Community
This is not merely a geopolitical flashpoint.
It is a legal crossroads.
International lawyers, jurists, constitutional scholars, and human-rights experts are watching closely — because the outcome of this moment may determine whether international law remains a meaningful restraint on power, or whether it becomes an optional inconvenience for those strong enough to ignore it.
Silence now would be interpreted as consent later.
The World Is Watching
No nation — regardless of its military strength or historical influence — has the legal right to appoint itself the unaccountable police force of the world.
If this action stands without rigorous legal challenge, the repercussions will indeed be severe and enormous — not only for Venezuela, but for the fragile international framework that has restrained global conflict for nearly eight decades.
History will record what was done.
The law will determine whether it was permitted.
And the world will decide whether it is willing to accept such a precedent.
