Why the U.S. strikes on Venezuela erode the UN Charter

Editor's note: Mariam Shah, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is an Islamabad-based independent researcher in the field of conflict studies and military psychology. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The most dangerous thing about the recent U.S. strikes on Venezuela was not the missiles used; it was the consolidation of a dangerous precedent. In a dramatic U.S. military action, a "large-scale strike" was carried out against Venezuela and President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were "captured and flown out of the country."

This operation raises urgent questions about the legality of the use of unilateral force in a world committed to following the UN Charter, as it has been condemned worldwide. Washington justifies its military action as a targeted effort to dismantle criminal groups.

Beyond these explanations, a more critical issue is emerging: the gradual weakening of the legal framework governing international relations since World War II. This situation goes beyond a mere geopolitical confrontation. It now signifies a legal breach, altering rules regarding when, how and by whom force is used in global affairs.

The rule the world agreed on

In 1945, countries recovering from worldwide destruction due to war agreed on a fundamental yet important rule: A state may use military force against another state only in two specific cases: self-defense after an attack or with the approval of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

This rule, codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, 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..."

Additionally, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, countries may use force in "self-defense" only if they are attacked, and any such action must be reported to the UNSC. Otherwise, only the council can authorize military measures to maintain international peace.

These laws were made to ensure that even the strongest states would be constrained by law. The prohibition on the use of force is unconditional and not subject to discretion.

But the U.S. military aggression in Venezuela falls outside the accepted norms. Venezuela has not attacked the U.S. militarily, nor is there any UNSC authorization. Legally, this makes the strikes highly problematic and illegal under international law. As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, "The rules of international law have not been respected."

Sovereignty of any state is not optional

Another critical point is that the sovereignty of any state is not optional. Sovereignty is a legal right, not a privilege granted by powerful nations, and it ensures that all countries are treated equally. It also guarantees that political change occurs through internal mechanisms rather than external pressure or interference.

International law does not permit unilateral regime change, regardless of the political justification presented. When exceptions are made outside established legal standards, they often grow and become "precedents," slowly turning violations into standard practices.

Another essential aspect in this episode is that any crime does not equal war or military aggression. The U.S. used the claim of the Venezuelan president's involvement in "narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy," among others, to justify its actions. But international law draws a clear distinction between crime and armed conflict.

If crime becomes a reason for war, then no border remains safe. Any country could justify using force against another by citing terrorism, cybercrime, or political extremism. This wouldn't be the enforcement of international law; it would be a form of unilateral action and unwarranted aggression on a sovereign state.

History has repeated itself. In 2003, accusations about acquiring weapons of mass destruction were used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq, claims that later proved false. Currently, allegations of drug trafficking and criminal plots are being used to justify airstrikes in Venezuela. Once again, mere claims, rather than UN approval, are being treated as an alternative for a legal mandate.

A precedent the world cannot afford

The long-term consequences of this aggression will reach well beyond Venezuela. It alters the perception of "acceptable" behavior for powerful states. As unilateral actions become more common, smaller countries are likely to pursue security via militarization. Alliances will become more rigid, forming rival blocks. Diplomacy may be replaced by deterrence, increasing the chances of conflict escalation.

International law rarely collapses suddenly. Instead, it gradually erodes, precedent by precedent, until it ceases to restrain anyone. International law, never designed to serve the interests of the powerful but to constrain them, is the primary casualty of this U.S. hegemonic posture and aggression against a sovereign state.

The global community must recognize that this issue extends beyond politics and involves legal concerns. The UN and international actors should reaffirm that the use of military force unilaterally is illegal unless authorized by the UN, regardless of who is involved. Remaining silent won't maintain stability; it will set a precedent that changes the rules by default.

We need to remember that when accusations become authorization, international law becomes optional, and no nation remains safe.

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