Introduction

The international world went into shock as the United States military entered Venezuelan soil and arrested its current President, Nicholas Maduro, and First Lady Cilia Flores on 3^rd January 2026. The United States launched an operation named ‘Operation Absolute Resolve’, which was a military raid targeting President Maduro. The operation culminated in arrest, or as termed by Venezuelan President Samuel Moncada, ‘kidnapping’[1] of the Venezuelan President and First Lady. After the arrest, they were transferred to New York to undergo criminal prosecution before the Southern District Court of New York based on the charges of what the US calls ‘narco-terrorism’.

The United Nations Security Council meeting held as a consequence of US actions witnessed differing opinions of the Council members. Some Council members raised concerns that if the US is not held accountable, it might undermine international peace and security and set a bad precedent for the unilateral use of force by States (view of the States: Brazil, Mexico, Chile, and Panama). However, some other States hold a different view, praising the US actions as an endeavour to re-establish democratic institutions of Venezuela by removing an ‘illegitimate Head’ (view of Argentina and Paraguay).[2]

This incident raised myriad questions related to international law. The arrest of the President of a sovereign State by the military of another sovereign State on the grounds of certain charges and subjecting him to face prosecution before a Domestic Court of another State raises serious questions related to international law.

Whatever may be the view of the States, but it cannot be denied that the actions of the US do raise security and peace concerns and issues related to the compliance of the international laws, especially the UN Charter, which forms the foundation of international law. Unilateral use of force by a Sovereign State against another sovereign state on the grounds of enforcing an indictment of the domestic Court is quite unjustifiable.

Therefore, this article is going to analyse the legal concerns pertaining to the actions of the United States.

Arguments of the United States

The United States has provided numerous arguments in its favour, thus attempting to justify its actions under international law. Some of the arguments put forth by the US for justifying its actions against President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are as follows:

Enforcement of an indictment

Ambassador Michael Waltz has quoted before the United Nations Security Council  (UNSC) that: “There is no war against Venezuela or its people. We are not occupying a country. This was a law-enforcement operation in furtherance of lawful indictments that have existed for decades.”[3] Therefore, the first and foremost defence the US has taken is that it has acted to enforce the indictments against President Maduro and his wife.

What is the 2020 indictment against Maduro? In 2011, the United States Department of Justice filed an indictment (In US, indictment is a formal accusation against the defendants and remains confidential until unsealed by the Court) against Maduro and others, which was unsealed (after unsealing of an indictment, it becomes a public document and the defendant gets the notice of the charges/allegations against him) in 2020. In this indictment, six defendants, including Maduro and his First Lady Cilia Flores, were alleged to have trafficked tons of Cocaine to the United States by collaborating with other criminal groups as part of a Narco-terrorism conspiracy.

Therefore, the United States argues that Maduro and Cilia Flores are nothing but narco-terrorists, and as a consequence of a lawful indictment of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, the arrest was justified.

It has been remarked that the “United States arrested a narcotrafficker who is now going to stand trial in the United States in accordance with the rule of law for the crimes he’s committed against our people for 15 years”[4]

Not a legitimate Head of the State

The United States also refused to recognise Maduro as the legitimate Head of State. It considers him an ‘illegitimate so-called President’ and therefore, denied head of the State immunity to him.

This argument arises from the 2024 controversy related to the Venezuelan presidential elections. His election as the President was opposed on the grounds that there was some tampering with the votes and results, and the opposition claimed that it had won the election.

Involvement with a vicious foreign terrorist organisation

Further, it has been argued that the Maduro and his co-defendants has been involved with other illegal organizations such as Cartel de los Soles, which is an organisation involved in drug trafficking and other serious criminal activities involving armed forces of Venezuela and Bolivarian National Intelligence network including high rank officials, Tren de Aragua which is a violent Venezuelan transnational criminal organization, and other drug traffickers. The US further argues that Maduro is aiding and abetting the terrorist organisation Hezbollah and working with other officers of Iran to malignly influence Venezuela and also the US. It has been alleged that Maduro and other accused persons have facilitated the trafficking of drugs through these organisations in the United States, and as the US has a duty to protect its people, this arrest action is justified.

Denied waiver of actions

The US has denied any wave in its actions to protect its people from narcoterrorism and seeking peace, liberty and justice for the great people of Venezuela.

Venezuela’s and the Security Council’s response

The Venezuelan government referred to the military operation in Venezuela as an ‘imperialist attack’. Venezuelan ambassador Samuel Moncada termed the military operation of the US as an ‘illegitimate attack’ lacking any legal justification. The arrest has been termed as ‘kidnapping’ of the President and First Lady. Venezuela has condemned the use of force by the US military.

Venezuela urged that President Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores be released and safely allowed to return, so that they may be granted immunity as the Head of State.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has also shown a deep concern over the illegitimate and unilateral use of force by the US. Countries like Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, China, and Russia have also condemned the US action and expressed concern about the normalisation of Unilateral force against a sovereign State.[5]

Relevant international law perspective

There are several international law issues involved in this case. Some of the primary concerns are as follows: territorial sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention, the prohibition on the use of force, the right to self-defence, and the sovereignty of the head of state.

Territorial sovereignty is a part of customary international law. It means that a State has the exclusive right to control its territory and no other State can intervene in its internal affairs. The actions of the United States were contrary to this important principle of international law. Even if the Presidential elections of Venezuela were not fair, and the election of Maduro was not legal, it is a matter of the State, and no other State can intervene.

Further, arresting Maduro, who is the sitting President of a sovereign State, in a military operation (involving the military of the United States) is unjustified. Arresting a Head of State on the basis of an indictment by the domestic Court is unjustifiable.

The principle of non-intervention is a fundamental principle of international law. No state can intervene in the matter of another sovereign State. The US have violated this basic principle of international law.

Even though the US had some complaints against President Maduro, it could have first resorted to other non-forceful methods, such as diplomatic actions, political actions (summoning ambassadors or expelling diplomats, etc.) or imposition of sanctions (such as freezing of assets and other economic actions) to indicate its disapproval towards the actions of President Maduro. 

Resorting to the use of force in the first instance is against the principles of international law.  International law has always promoted the peaceful settlement of disputes. Resorting to force is always a last resort under international law. Article 2(3) of the United Nations Charter provides that all members shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Further, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter further states that “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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. A State can be permitted to use force only if it is authorised by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter or in self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations (Article 51 of the Charter).

The first and foremost question here is whether the allegations against President Maduro and his First Lady, Cilia Flores, amount to an armed attack. Has Venezuela been involved in any armed attack against the US? Or whether ‘narco-terrorism’ amounts to armed attacks? The answer is ‘no’. Narco-terrorism or any of the activities for which the US has alleged the President does not amounts to an armed attack. It means that the justification of self-defence by the US will not work here.

Further, there was no authorisation by the Security Council to the US to use force against Venezuela. Therefore, the US was unjustified in launching a military operation against the state of Venezuela with the motive to arrest its sitting Head.

Further, the US cannot deny the Head of State immunity to the sitting head of a sovereign state on the ground that his election was unlawful. The legality of the election is a domestic matter of a State in which no other State can interfere. Even if the election of President Maduro was illegal, it does not affect his status as the sitting Head of State and therefore, the arrest was unjustified on this ground too.

Conclusion

 It can be concluded that the arguments and justifications the US has been providing for its actions cannot be accepted at all. If these justifications are accepted and the actions are condoned at the international forum, it will set a dangerous precedent in international history. No State can be allowed to use its powerful position in such a manner to undermine the sovereignty of other States. This is a serious threat to the aims and objectives of the UN Charter.

Arbitrary unilateral use of force cannot be allowed. Neither did the US act in self-defence, nor did it have authorisation from the UN Security Council. Therefore, the current actions of the US must not be ignored by the Security Council, and immediate measures must be taken to mitigate their effects.

To read more content on similar topics click here.

---

[1] Maduro seized, norms tested: Security Council divided as Venezuela crisis deepens | The United Nations Office at Geneva, last visited: 01-02-2026.

[2] Maduro seized, norms tested: Security Council divided as Venezuela crisis deepens | The United Nations Office at Geneva, last visited: 01-02-2026.

[3] US actions in Venezuela ‘constitute a dangerous precedent’: Guterres | UN News 

[4] Remarks at a UN Security Council Briefing on Venezuela – United States Mission to the United Nations

[5] Maduro seized, norms tested: Security Council divided as Venezuela crisis deepens | UN News, last visited: 06-02-2026.