By Ofentse Phoebe Ledwaba, Lesiba Benedict Moshoeu and Konanani Happy Raligilia
On January 3, US President Donald Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, would face “the full wrath of American justice” in US courts.
This followed a 2020 narco-terrorism indictment from Trump’s first term, initiated in New York City. The US military started with overnight airstrikes around Caracas, and a state of emergency was declared, with casualty and damage
assessments pending.
The Venezuelan government condemned the US, calling the strikes serious military aggression that threatens its sovereignty.
This escalation followed years of tensions, especially over oil and actions against suspected drug vessels. The US launched military operations to oust Maduro, including confiscating oil tankers.
This is not the first instance of US military intervention: the invasion of Panama in 1989 by former president George HW Bush, aimed at capturing Gen Manuel Noriega for drug trafficking and racketeering.
In that case, the US was motivated not by oil interests but by the need to protect the Panama Canal Treaty.
The US has referenced this historic event to justify its attack on Venezuela.
The US-Venezuela tensions highlight issues of sovereignty, human rights, and the prohibition of force in international law. Sovereignty grants states control over their territory and ties them to the principle of non-intervention, thereby preventing coercion by others.
The US intervention aims not only to arrest Maduro but also to access oil through coercion, seeking to influence government and policy contrary to international legal standards.
Jurisdiction is key here. International law permits states to exercise jurisdiction mainly based on territory or nationality, with limited acceptance of protective or universal jurisdiction.
The US measures go beyond traditional boundaries by regulating third-party actors and foreign companies dealing with Venezuela. This extraterritoriality raises legal questions about imposing domestic authority over another sovereign state.
State responsibility provides a framework to assess the legality of actions when international obligations are breached.
A state that commits an internationally wrongful act may face countermeasures, which must follow international law: responses to prior wrongful acts, aiming to induce compliance, proportional, and humanitarian. In the US-Venezuela conflict, the US claims Maduro’s actions are narco-terrorism, threatening US democracy.
Whether the invasion constitutes a countermeasure depends on whether the US can prove legal injury and meet the relevant legal standards, rather than relying solely on moral or political grounds.
The invasion raises issues of the use of force. International law, as outlined in the UN Charter, distinguishes between the use of political pressure and the use of military force. Article 2(4) generally bans threats or use of force against a state’s territorial integrity or independence, with exceptions for UN Security Council approval or self-defence under Article 51.
International law also grants heads of state immunity, meaning they cannot be detained in foreign courts. This raises questions about who is considered the legitimate leader and who decides this.
The US denounces Maduro as an illegitimate leader and drug trafficker, similar to Noriega’s case, who was denied immunity because he did not qualify as Panama’s head of state, as specified by its constitution.
Maduro, who was vice-president and then interim president after Hugo Chávez, had previously received US recognition, however, since 2019, both administrations have refused to acknowledge his legitimacy.
Despite electoral wins, concerns over election fraud persist. Sovereignty, jurisdiction, state responsibility, immunity, and legitimacy create a framework for assessing the legality of pressures.
This shift focuses on the relationship between political narratives and legal standards, including coercion, proportionality, and rights protection. It helps distinguish lawful responses from actions that could undermine laws.
• Disclaimer: Authors write in their own capacity
