The U.S. military intervention in other countries' internal affairs, where is the legal boundary?

Editor's note: Qian Feng, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a senior research fellow at the National Strategic Institute, Tsinghua University. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On January 3, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump announced via social media that the United States had launched a large-scale military strike against Venezuela, capturing President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. This action thrust the controversy over the legality of "military intervention in another country's internal affairs" into the center of international public opinion.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated on January 3 that China is deeply shocked by the U.S. blatant use of force against a sovereign state and actions taken against its president, and strongly condemns them. Such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela's sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

In the absence of UN Security Council authorization and given that the target country does not pose an "immediate threat," what legal basis underlies the U.S. unilateral military action? Does this imply a violent resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine in the 21st century? More alarmingly, could this precedent erode the very foundations of the post-war international order, potentially opening Pandora's box for hegemonic powers to arbitrarily interfere in other nations' internal affairs?

The U.S. operation's "legitimacy" rests entirely on self-constructed logic. Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, sovereign states must not "threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state" unless in "self-defense" or with Security Council authorization. Yet Venezuela neither launched armed attacks against the U.S. nor has it been proven to possess "weapons of mass destruction" or "terrorist threats" – common grounds for such authorization. The U.S. merely invoked "anti-drug operations," yet failed to provide concrete evidence of the Maduro government's direct involvement in international drug trafficking networks. A CBS News poll conducted from November 19 to 21 revealed that only 13 percent of respondents considered Venezuela a major security threat to the United States. Another 48 percent viewed it as a secondary threat, while 39 percent deemed it not a threat at all. Notably, 70 percent of respondents expressed opposition to U.S. military action.

In the eyes of many international observers, the U.S. action this time is a variant of the 19th-century "Monroe Doctrine" in the 21st century. The "Monroe Doctrine" emerged in the early 19th century, initially declaring "America is the Americas of the Americans," but in reality, it regarded Latin America as the U.S. "backyard," prohibiting European powers from interfering while providing a pretext for the U.S. to intervene in Latin American internal affairs. However, as history progressed, this principle gradually evolved into a tool for the United States to dominate the Western Hemisphere and arbitrarily interfere in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. Statistics show that from the CIA-backed coup in Guatemala in 1954, which overthrew the elected president Jacob Guzman, to the 1989 military invasion of Panama that captured then-President Manuel Noriega, the U.S. conducted a total of 13 intervention operations in Latin America during the Cold War.

In December 2025, the Trump administration unveiled the National Security Strategy Report, which for the first time introduced the "Trump Corollary" of the Monroe Doctrine, establishing it as the framework for the new era of "America First" policy. The report defined the Western Hemisphere as the "frontline of U.S. border security, critical supply chains, and geopolitical competition," emphasizing the need to prevent "external adversaries" from deploying military forces or controlling strategic assets in Latin America through military deployments, economic interventions, and political pressure. Undoubtedly, this military operation became a testing ground for the Trump Corollary's ideology.

The United States' renewed military intervention against a Latin American sovereign nation mirrors the logic of the historic Monroe Doctrine. This move has unequivocally blurred the red line between state sovereignty and external interference in international law. It sends a dangerous signal to the world: a nation's sovereignty is no longer absolute. If its internal affairs fail to meet the standards of a major external power, that power may intervene militarily or even overthrow its government. This blatant provocation against all sovereign states will severely undermine global stability and security.

More alarmingly, this brazen move by the United States sets an extremely dangerous precedent. If a global power can arbitrarily impose "regime changes" on other nations through its own strength, disregarding international legal frameworks and UN authority, the entire post-war international order risks collapse. Such actions would encourage other major powers to follow suit, judging and interfering in other countries by their own standards, plunging the world into a jungle law of the survival of the fittest. The weak nations will never find peace, as they may become the casualties of great power competition at any moment. If this continues, the international system based on sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs will become a mere formality, pushing the world back to the brink of chaos and war.

If the international community allows the United States to trample on international law, the ultimate cost will be the peace and future of all humanity. Today's Venezuela could become any country tomorrow.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)