Early this morning, the world woke up to the news of a massive military operation in Caracas. U.S. President Donald Trump has confirmed that American special forces, reportedly including Delta Force, launched a “large-scale strike” on Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores and flying them out of the country.
While political opinions on the Maduro administration vary wildly, the legal reality of this morning’s actions is stark. From a legal standpoint, this operation represents one of the most significant challenges to the established international order in decades. Here is why this is a grave violation of international law.
Violation of Territorial Sovereignty
The cornerstone of the United Nations Charter is the principle of territorial integrity. No state has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of another, let alone launch an unprovoked military strike on a sovereign nation’s capital. By deploying low-flying aircraft and conducting strikes on military installations like La Carlota and Fuerte Tiuna, the U.S. has bypassed the UN Security Council entirely, making this an act of unilateral aggression.
The Illegal Capture of a Sitting Head of State
Under established international norms, sitting heads of state enjoy diplomatic immunity. Even when a leader is accused of crimes—such as the drug trafficking charges cited by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi—the “capture” and removal of a president by a foreign military is widely viewed as a kidnapping or a “regime change” operation, not a legal extradition.
This sets a dangerous precedent: if one nation can unilaterally decide a foreign leader is a “criminal” and use special forces to abduct them, the entire framework of sovereign immunity collapses.
Lack of a “Self-Defense” Justification
International law allows for the use of force only in two scenarios:
* Authorization by the UN Security Council.
* Self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51).
The U.S. has not provided evidence of an “imminent attack” from Venezuela. Claims of “narcoterrorism” or regional stability, while serious, do not legally justify a full-scale military invasion or the abduction of a foreign leader under the current international legal framework.
Human Cost and Civilian Risks
Reports are already emerging of civilian casualties and widespread power outages in Caracas. International humanitarian law (the laws of war) requires that any military action must be proportionate and must distinguish between military and civilian targets. A nighttime raid in a densely populated capital city, accompanied by airstrikes, inherently risks the lives of millions of non-combatants.
The Precedent of 1989
Many analysts are drawing parallels to the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama to capture Manuel Noriega. However, the world in 2026 is a different place. With the UN Secretary-General already expressing “deep alarm” and nations like Russia and Mexico condemning the “assault on sovereignty,” the U.S. may find itself more diplomatically isolated than ever before.
Conclusion
Might does not make right. Regardless of one’s view of Maduro’s domestic policies, the circumvention of international law threatens the safety of all nations. If the “rules-based order” only applies when it is convenient for the powerful, then the rules effectively cease to exist.
brainwaves 