By GEB
The brazen invasion of Venezuela by the United States, subsequent arrest of its president and his wife, and their ongoing trial in New York, is clearly redefining the limits of international law, which frowns on such action. While it is trite to state that the U.S. is spinning the political world into a state of ‘might is right’, the world should not get tired of pointing out the grave implications and repercussions of the situation. More so, the possibility of an escalation of the unholy situation is high.
President Donald Trump, the key figure in the threat to international stability, has publicly warned Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, that she would “pay a very big price, probably bigger than former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro,” should she fail to cooperate with U.S. demands following a U.S. military operation that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
Maduro, together with his wife, Cilia Flores, was abducted on January 3, 2026, by U.S. forces in Caracas and transferred to New York, where he now faces trial on charges including narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, and possession of prohibited weapons. The operation, reportedly known as Operation Resolve, involved U.S. Special Forces capturing both individuals in Venezuela and transporting them to the United States to face prosecution. Maduro has pleaded not guilty and is expected to return to court on March 17, 2026.
In the aftermath of these events, the U.S. government has announced plans to oversee Venezuela’s administration pending what it describes as a safe transition of power. President Trump has also been explicit about the strategic considerations informing U.S. actions, repeatedly citing Venezuela’s substantial oil reserves and stating that American oil companies could invest significant private capital to revitalise the country’s energy infrastructure.
It is against this backdrop that the reported warnings to interim President Rodríguez must be carefully assessed. While states may pursue their national interests, the language of public threats—particularly those linked to economic concessions—raises broader questions about appropriate conduct in international relations. Such moments call for careful calibration rather than escalation.
International law has long sought to limit the use of force and coercion in relations between states. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, widely regarded as a cornerstone of the post-war international legal order, obliges member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This principle builds on earlier efforts, such as the 1928 Briand–Kellogg Pact, which sought to renounce war as an instrument of national policy and to encourage the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Following the Second World War, states collectively reaffirmed that international peace and security depend on restraint, dialogue, and respect for sovereignty, with limited exceptions recognised under international law, including self-defence as articulated in the Caroline case of the nineteenth century. Over time, these principles have come to be understood not merely as treaty obligations, but as elements of customary international law.
History suggests that the frequent resort to military force in resolving political disputes rarely produces durable stability. Past U.S. interventions—from the Dominican Republic in 1965, to Panama in 1989, Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, Grenada in 1983, Haiti in 1994, and Libya in 2011—demonstrate the complexity and long-term consequences of forcibly altering political leadership, even when undertaken with stated security or humanitarian objectives. These episodes continue to inform global debates about legitimacy, proportionality, and unintended consequences.
This is why many observers urge caution in the present circumstances. Actions that may appear expedient in the short term can have lasting implications for international norms if they are perceived as relying on coercion rather than consent. Disagreements between states, however serious, are generally better addressed through diplomacy, mediation, multilateral engagement, and lawful pressure than through public threats or unilateral action.
At moments of heightened tension, leadership is measured not by the severity of rhetoric, but by the ability to exercise restraint. The international community has a legitimate interest in encouraging approaches that reinforce, rather than weaken, the rules-based order painstakingly constructed over decades.
For its part, the United States would benefit from clearly distinguishing official policy articulated through its constitutional institutions from individual political statements, and from reaffirming its commitment to international law and multilateral cooperation. Supporting a lawful and inclusive transition in Venezuela—rather than seeking to dictate outcomes—would be more consistent with democratic principles and more likely to yield lasting stability.
Engagement through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the Organisation of American States, and regional partners could also help confer legitimacy on any transition process and reduce perceptions of unilateralism. Venezuela’s challenges have regional and global implications, from migration to energy markets, and they call for collective solutions.
Ultimately, if Venezuela is to move toward recovery and reconciliation, external actors must proceed with care. History counsels that sustainable peace is built through patience, dialogue, and respect for sovereignty—not through threats or pressure that risk deepening division. In this moment, strategic restraint may prove the most effective form of leadership.
In this article