Expert Comment: The illegality of the US attack against Venezuela is beyond debate - how the world reacts is critical

Professor Janina Dill

“Operation Absolute Resolve” – which by military standards was undoubtedly successful – violates one of the most fundamental rules of international law, the prohibition on the use of force in international relations, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

US officials characterised it as a law enforcement operation, but this does not change the fact that the US then and there initiated an international armed conflict with Venezuela. Moreover, the US cannot legally enforce law on other states’ territories without their consent. The law enforcement operation that was part of the use of force is likewise incompatible with international law. The capture of an effective, if clearly illegitimate, head of state adds another violation of international law, rather than redeeming the use of military force. 

The US attack under International Law

None of the narrow legal exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force in international relations applies to the US operation.

The conclusion is inescapable: the US started the year 2026 with a military aggression against a sovereign nation without the semblance of a legal justification. This is not complex. We can stop debating it.   

The US made no attempt to obtain a Security Council mandate. Neither did it face an imminent or ongoing armed attack by Venezuela or an actor operating on its territory, which could trigger a right of self-defence. Deposing an illegitimate leader, “liberating” the Venezuelan people from ruthless dictatorial rule, fighting illegal drug trafficking, whether as pretexts or sincerely held objectives, these goals do not provide a legal justification for the use of military force on another state’s territory. Of course, all evidence points to the fact that these were pretexts, which matters greatly to the Venezuelan people and the prospects for democracy there.

Either way, the conclusion is inescapable: the US started the year 2026 with a military aggression against a sovereign nation without the semblance of a legal justification. This is not complex. We can stop debating it.   

Let us instead turn our attention to where it is most needed: first, the fact that US officials have largely refrained from explaining the attack on Venezuela in legal terms and, second, the equivocal reactions of the international community to this brazen lawlessness. 

No US attempt at a legal justification 

Previous instances of the US using force to change regimes have stood in tension with international law. “Liberating” oppressed peoples, democratising illiberal regimes, guaranteeing access to energy reserves or establishing control over strategically important regions are not new rationales for US military operations. Many of the themes that were prominent in President Trump’s press conference the day after the invasion evoked objectives of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“Liberating” oppressed peoples, democratising illiberal regimes, guaranteeing access to energy reserves or establishing control over strategically important regions are not new rationales for US military operations. 

More striking, however, is a critical difference between Operation Iraqi Freedom and this latest US attempt at forcible regime change. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was preceded by a long diplomatic quest to gain Security Council approval. It was accompanied by elaborate attempts to explain US actions in legal terms.

Now, the silence of US officials on international law is deafening. 

The lack of effort to find a legal justification for the attack on Venezuela betrays their sense that international law does not, should not constrain US foreign policy. Unapologetic defiance of law is much more dangerous – for the law and hence for global stability – than violations couched in, however implausible, legal apologia, as previous US military interventions often were.

The sense that law does not constrain US foreign policy also adds urgency to the question of what does? President Trump and his officials have articulated a series of territorial ambitions in direct contravention of international law, including annexing Greenland. These threats explicitly evoke 19^th century imperialist ideas of great powers’ spheres of influence. They reveal a total disregard for foundational legal rules like territorial integrity and self-determination.

The only limit to US interventionism seems to be the elusive and elastic understanding of the national or maybe even the “Presidential interest”.  

Weak responses from European states 

Every state in the world that, in a direct confrontation, could not militarily stand up to the US has a material interest in defending legal rules and customs that prohibit aggression. Every such state should, as a matter of national security, defend the legal principles of territorial integrity and head of state immunity. That is, every state.

Why then have many, including the United Kingdom, failed to explicitly designate the US operation as a violation of international law? Why have they failed to unequivocally condemn this aggression?

Why then have many, including the United Kingdom, failed to explicitly designate the US operation as a violation of international law? Why have they failed to unequivocally condemn this aggression?

In one sense the answer seems obvious. Diagnosis and condemnation may appear futile. When a nuclear-armed great power that is a permanent member of the UN Security Council breaks international law, the body that is meant to enforce the prohibition on the use of force, the UN Security Council, is incapacitated. Direct support for the victim of aggression may pose a significant escalation risk. 

And yet, we know from the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine that a different reaction is possible. 

In 2022, 141 countries voted to “deplore[…] in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine”. In the age of global disinformation and specifically in highly polarising contexts, simply being able to clearly and unequivocally designate a use of military force as “wrong” is valuable. It also upholds the functionality of law as a tool to tell right from wrong. If in this context a legal assessment with confidence in real-time were not possible, what would law be good for?

In that sense, the official German statement on the invasion, which called the matter “complex” and announced that Germany would take its time to conduct a legal assessment, is as damaging to the rule of international law as the performed disdain by many Trump officials. In addition, a clear legal assessment is a necessary basis for an appropriate political reaction, chiefly non-cooperation with the aggressor and condemnation. This, in turn, prevents an unlawful aggression from becoming a legal precedent.

Every state not calling out this blatant aggression helps hold the axe that shatters the international order.

In short, diagnosis and condemnation of the US illegal aggression are important, even if they fail to impose material costs on the aggressor or have a deterrent effect for the future. This is less likely but by no means impossible when the aggressor is a nuclear armed member of the Security Council.  

If not lack of meaningfulness of a legal condemnation, what then explains why many states side-step the issue?

They may believe that diplomacy behind the scenes and public accommodation of the Trump administration better safeguard their national interests. The costs of this strategy are, as outlined: every state not calling out this blatant aggression helps hold the axe that shatters the international order.

The payoffs of placating the Trump administration and hoping to influence decision-making behind the scenes, meanwhile, are uncertain. Since appeasement was sensibly not their reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, states should ask based on what difference they believe this strategy could be successful now. 

For more information about this story or republishing this content, please contact [email protected]