BETWEEN POWER AND PRINCIPLE: THE VENEZUELAN CRISIS AND THE STRESS TEST OF THE UN CHARTER.

The Venezuelan crisis is not only about one country or one leader because it represents a clear moment in the ongoing struggle between international law and raw power in global affairs. The capture and removal of Nicolás Maduro and his wife after a massive U.S. strike on Caracas raises an uncomfortable question for the world stage. What remains of the UN Charter, state sovereignty, and international security? Is international law a binding shield for all or a selective language spoken only when power permits?

1. Introduction.

Before dawn broke on January 3, 2026, the global order was jolted awake by an event few believed possible in the post Cold War era. In a swift and meticulously coordinated military operation, U.S. Special Forces entered Caracas, seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores from their residence, and removed them from Venezuelan soil altogether.

The operation was not an impulsive strike but the result of months of visible pressure, including a sustained U.S. naval buildup in the Caribbean, increased aerial readiness, and a sequence of lethal interdictions against vessels accused of narcotics trafficking. Conducted with roughly 150 aircraft operating from 20 regional bases, the mission, which was publicly celebrated in Washington as a demonstration of American military precision, crossed a psychological and legal threshold.

The forcible capture of a sitting head of state, carried out openly rather than covertly, instantly created a global moment, igniting fierce debate over sovereignty, legality, and whether the rules governing international conduct still hold when confronted by overwhelming power. As governments and institutions reacted, the world found itself divided not along geopolitical lines but across incompatible interpretations of international law.

The United States put forward a strikingly unconventional justification, insisting the operation was not an act of war but a transnational law enforcement action. According to U.S. officials, Maduro was not a protected sovereign but a fugitive indicted by the American justice system on charges of narco terrorism, making his capture and transfer to New York lawful and necessary. This reasoning was swiftly and broadly rejected. From governments and legal voices across the world, the prevailing judgment was stark in the sense that the operation constituted the use of armed force against the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, in direct violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

1.1. Power and Precedent.

UN Secretary General António Guterres warned that the action risked establishing a dangerous precedent capable of hollowing out the Charter’s core principles. At stake was not only Venezuela’s fate, but the survival of the idea that all states, whether large or small, stand equal before international law.

In the aftermath, President Donald Trump declared that the United States would effectively oversee Venezuela in order to guarantee what he described as a stable and orderly transition. He openly tied this oversight to Venezuela’s vast oil wealth by announcing that American energy companies would repair the country’s devastated infrastructure and restore profitability to its petroleum sector. These statements added weight to long-standing global suspicions that control over the world’s largest proven crude reserves lay at the heart of the operation.

Trump went further still by explicitly connecting the intervention to a revived hemispheric doctrine. By invoking and renaming the Monroe Doctrine as the “Donroe Doctrine,” he proclaimed that American dominance in the Western Hemisphere would not be challenged. In doing so, the operation shed any remaining ambiguity in the sense that this was not simply about justice or democracy, but rather a forceful reassertion of spheres of influence and a reminder that power politics had returned to open view within international relations.

The operation raises unsettling questions. Can the prohibition on the use of force survive if powerful states can recast invasion as policing? Does sovereignty retain meaning when economic and ideological interests override collective rules? By acting first and defending later, the United States has subjected the international system to intense pressure. Whether this incident becomes a singular rupture or the template for a new age of unilateral intervention will depend on how the world responds. The answer will determine whether global order remains grounded in law or instead drifts toward a future where power alone writes the rules.

2. When Power Tests the Charter.

The U.S. operation violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law by deploying military force on Venezuelan territory without consent, Security Council authorization, or a valid claim of self-defense, thereby constituting an act of aggression as defined by the UN General Assembly and recognized since Nuremberg as the gravest international crime.

The seizure and extraterritorial transfer of Venezuela’s sitting head of state unlawfully interfered with the country’s political independence, disregarded head-of-state immunity irrespective of recognition disputes, and bypassed extradition or judicial cooperation mechanisms. Together, these violations undermine sovereignty, non-intervention, and the integrity of the international legal order. This forces the international community to confront a serious question that asks when a great power treats binding law as an obstacle to be bypassed, what force remains to preserve order and protect the rules meant to shield all states?

No legal justification presented by the United States alters this assessment. Domestic criminal indictments, allegations of narco-terrorism, or assertions of moral necessity cannot override the UN Charter or customary international law, which render the use of force unlawful in the absence of Security Council authorization or a genuine act of self-defense based in necessity, proportionality, and imminence. None of these conditions were present.

2.1. Law and Power.

The operation therefore constitutes an unlawful use of force and an act of aggression, irrespective of the gravity of the accusations or the legitimacy disputes surrounding Venezuela’s leadership. The failure of the Security Council to respond meaningfully does not legalize the breach but instead exposes the fragility of collective security and the dangers of selective application, where power substitutes for law and precedent erodes the foundational rules of the international order.

The capture of Maduro performs a brutal stress test on the United Nations system, exposing its fundamental ambiguities and the specter of selective enforcement. The UN relies on a consensus among great powers that has now fractured, revealing a reality where legal principles bend under the weight of raw power and national interest.

As some states condemned the operation while others cautiously warned against escalation or chose silence, the Security Council found itself paralyzed, able to debate but not to act. The operation thus becomes more than a news event and stands as a telling parable of a post Charter world in formation, where rules remain in text but weaken in practice. It asks whether international law is a binding covenant or simply a convenient fiction, and whether the architecture built to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war can withstand the determined will of a single powerful state.

3. The Return of Spheres of Influence.

The operation that began with U.S. strikes on Caracas and ended with President Nicolás Maduro’s detention in the United States was not an isolated enforcement action but the practical execution of a revived hemispheric doctrine. Explicitly articulated in the 2025 National Security Strategy, this so called “Trump Corollary” redirected American strategic focus away from Europe and Asia toward reasserting dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Framed in the language of economic security, energy control, and strategic assets, the intervention corresponded with President Trump’s open declaration that the United States would effectively run Venezuela and assume control over its vast oil reserves. The development thus reflects a deliberate return to sphere of influence politics, where territorial proximity and material interest outweigh multilateral restraint.

International reactions further expose the asymmetry of this emerging order. While China and Russia condemned the intervention as a violation of sovereignty, both stopped short of any concrete challenge, revealing a reluctance to confront an openly declared U.S. sphere of influence. This hesitation contrasts with Washington’s willingness to act unilaterally and transparently impose its regional dominance.

The result is a fractured global environment in which one power asserts proprietary control while others hedge, leaving the principles of the U.N. Charter under severe strain. The Venezuelan crisis therefore emerges as a wider test of whether the international system will accept a return to overt spheres of influence, where power, rather than law, increasingly determines global order.

4. Power Politics in Play.

The storm of engines over Caracas was not just an act of force, but a serious fracture in the architecture of international order. The capture and extraction of Nicolás Maduro and his wife by a unilateral American strike represents the ultimate stress test for the UN Charter’s prohibition against the use of force.

This is not a clean surgical cut, but a jagged tear, justified under unclear and self-determined claims of narcotics enforcement and human rights, while recalling past interventions that have long troubled the conscience of international law.

By bypassing the Security Council, which is the very body designed to authorize collective action, the operation risks making military solutions a standard tool of policy, and changes the Charter’s promise from a shield of sovereignty into a discretionary guideline.

The critical danger revealed is that an action taken to punish a violation of order may, in fact, inflict an even greater damage on the rule based system, and set a precedent where power, and not law, decides what is legitimate.

4.1. Force over Consent.

The consequences of this action extend far beyond Venezuela, altering global alignments and exposing the balance of power that governs contemporary international relations. What occurred was not simply the removal of a leader but a deliberate projection of dominance intended to impose outcomes rather than secure consent. This assessment does not defend Nicolás Maduro against the allegations leveled against him, but rather defends the United Nations Charter, the sovereignty of states, and the international legal framework designed to restrain the use of force, regardless of the identity of the leader involved.

The result is a political environment in which transition and reconstruction proceed under constant pressure, narrowing the space for genuine autonomy or independent decision making. Across regions, responses diverge as some actors harden their commitment to non-intervention while others adjust to the prevailing reality. Among major powers and non-aligned states, the event delivers a clear warning that international institutions can falter at decisive moments, leaving alliances strained and neutrality increasingly difficult to maintain in a system driven less by agreement than by force.

From this point forward, the Venezuelan crisis reads less as an internal political struggle and more as a cautionary account of power exercised without restraint. Maduro’s personal fate diminishes beside a larger challenge concerning authority and legitimacy in global affairs. The circumstances of his capture raise a direct question about due process itself, namely who can credibly guarantee a fair and impartial trial when the act of seizure already shows that guilt has been assumed by those exercising force.

What follows will not be resolved solely through legal proceedings but through shifts in global posture and principle, as states reassess sovereignty and the limits of intervention. The final consequence of this moment is the exposure of an international system whose survival depends less on written rules than on the willingness of powerful actors to respect them when compliance becomes optional.

5. Conclusion.

The image of Nicolás Maduro being removed from Venezuelan soil does not close a chapter but opens a deeper and more troubling one for global governance. What matters most is not the fate of one leader but the precedent established by the manner of his removal. When force replaces collective judgment, the promise of equal sovereignty gives way to a system where legitimacy is defined externally and imposed selectively. This moment forces a reassessment of whether international order still rests on shared rules or whether it now depends on the preferences and capacity of the most powerful actors. It also raises an unavoidable question about whether the world is entering a new order altogether and whether institutions such as the United Nations can still claim relevance when their authority appears suspended precisely when it is most needed.

Beyond questions of leadership and legality lies a quieter but more unsettling dilemma about economic freedom and political alignment. States are now confronted with the reality that choosing trading partners or pursuing commercial ties can be reclassified as wrongdoing when such choices conflict with the interests or moral judgments of powerful governments. In such a system, smaller states may find that those with whom they do business are unable or unwilling to defend them when pressure is applied. Economic choice becomes a liability, and neutrality becomes increasingly fragile in a world where power determines which relationships are acceptable.

This logic extends inevitably to natural resources. Venezuela’s wealth raises an old but unresolved question about ownership and authority. Do a country’s resources belong to its people by right of sovereignty, or do they become accessible to those who possess the power to enforce outcomes? When external actors shape political change and then influence economic restructuring, the distinction between intervention and control becomes difficult to sustain. The language may differ, and the methods may appear more refined, but the underlying dynamic recalls earlier eras when power dictated access, justified by claims of order, progress, or moral necessity.

The final implication is that the international system stands at a defining crossroads. Conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, alongside actions like the Venezuelan intervention, contribute to a climate of fear and mistrust that pushes states toward rearmament rather than cooperation. As faith in international law and collective protection erodes, countries increasingly conclude that survival depends on military strength, accelerating arms races and renewing interest in weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate guarantee of security.

In this reality, international rules appear to restrain weaker and developing states while the most powerful operate beyond meaningful consequence. If power determines legality, if economic choice invites punishment, and if security rests on self help alone, then the difference between modern global order and raw competition becomes increasingly narrow. What is at stake is not only the credibility of the United Nations, but whether the world accepts a future where protection belongs to the strong and law serves those who already command power.

Thank you.

Written by Christopher Makwaia
Tel: +255 789 242 396

— The writer, is a University of West London graduate (formerly Thames Valley University) and an expert in Management, Leadership, International Business, Foreign Affairs, Global Marketing, Diplomacy, International Relations, Conflict Resolution, Negotiations, Security, Arms Control, Political Scientist, and a self-taught Computer Programmer and Web Developer.