Venezuela's Capture: A Test for Global Rules

The recent capture of Nicolás Maduro raises serious questions about international law. Maduro's rule has been marked by election fraud, oppression, and a severe humanitarian crisis. However, the U. S. military operation that led to his capture was illegal under international law. International law isn't just for good leaders. It's there to control power, especially when strong countries want to use force. If we let this slide, it won't just affect Venezuela. It could make war a normal tool for policy. The UN Charter clearly states that using force against another country is not allowed. The U. S. helped create this rule after seeing the dangers of unrestrained militarism. There are only a few exceptions, like self-defense or UN approval. None of these apply here. Venezuela didn't attack the U. S. There was no immediate threat. The UN didn't approve the operation. And Maduro's government, no matter how illegitimate, didn't agree to a foreign military strike. So, the attack was illegal. The U. S. initially said the operation was to stop drug trafficking. But Venezuela isn't the main source of drugs in the U. S. And even if it were, drug trafficking isn't considered an armed attack under international law. If it were, any powerful country could invade another by calling a social issue a security threat. Some supporters say the operation was a law enforcement action, not a war. But countries can't use military force to arrest leaders in another country. If they could, sovereignty would mean nothing. International law gives immunity to leaders not to protect them, but to prevent politically motivated arrests by armies.The most revealing moment was when President Trump said the operation was to protect Venezuela's energy resources. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. Wars to secure resources have happened before. International law calls them wars of aggression. Some people think sovereignty is only for good leaders. But sovereignty isn't a reward. It's a protection for all countries from foreign domination. International law can condemn Maduro's actions and reject a foreign military takeover at the same time. This intervention fits a broader pattern. The U. S. is asserting dominance over the hemisphere, prioritizing coercion over diplomacy. When a permanent member of the UN Security Council openly violates the Charter, it weakens the restraint on everyone else. There's also a domestic cost. When leaders treat international law as optional, they normalize lawlessness. Executive power expands. Congressional oversight erodes. The line between legal authority and raw force blurs. There were lawful alternatives. Multilateral pressure, targeted sanctions, international investigations, and diplomatic engagement. What wasn't lawful was invasion, abduction, and the suggestion that the U. S. can control another country and its resources. The real question isn't whether Maduro deserved to fall. It's whether the U. S. is prepared to abandon the legal order it helped build. Because when power replaces law, even the powerful eventually lose the protection they once relied on.