Legal Scholars Denounce US Military Strike on Venezuela as Unlawful

Legal analysts from Just Security, including Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman, and Tess Bridgeman, contend that the bombing of Caracas and the subsequent kidnapping of Maduro fundamentally differ from previous US maritime operations in international waters. They argue that Saturday’s raid constitutes a clear breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which mandates that member states refrain from threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity of any nation. The scholars rejected the White House narrative that the intervention was a necessary measure against drug trafficking, noting that no credible evidence identifies Venezuela as a primary hub for narcotics threatening US national security. Furthermore, they emphasized that drug-related activity does not meet the legal threshold for an ‘armed attack,’ which is the only justification for self-defense.

The Breach of Sovereignty and International Protections

Beyond the initial strike, which reportedly killed over 80 people, experts highlight that the US lacks jurisdiction to conduct law enforcement operations within Venezuelan borders without government consent. Even if Washington does not recognize the Maduro administration, international law dictates that consent must be sought from the entity exercising effective control over the territory. Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, echoed these concerns, calling the operation an act of illegal aggression. Meanwhile, at an emergency UN Security Council meeting, Secretary-General António Guterres urged a return to established legal frameworks, warning that circumventing the Charter undermines the foundation of global peace and security. Legal observers warn that failing to challenge such actions risks replacing the rule of law with systemic anarchy.