On the 3rd of January 2026, the US conducted military strikes on the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, after rising tensions between the two countries since President Trump’s inauguration in 2024. Alongside these strikes, US forces also captured and arrested the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on charges of narco-terrorism and enabling the transportation of cocaine into the US. US actions in Venezuela have been condemned by Venezuelan allies such as Russia and China, and neighbouring Latin American countries such as Brazil, Bolivia and Colombia. However, many European countries have refused to outwardly condemn the Trump administration’s actions.
Maduro’s vice-president, Delcy Rodriguez was promptly sworn in to replace Maduro, leaving many wondering if the intervention in Venezuela has simply meant a change in leadership rather than a change in regime. However, despite new leadership, the US is keen to effectively ‘run’ Venezuela threatening Rodriguez if she does not conform with the demands of the US. President Trump believes that this US authority in Venezuela is derived from the Monroe doctrine, a policy originating in the post-colonial era which was later used to try and establish US dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The policy has been used by US presidents for decades to justify their intervention in Latin America regarding it as a sphere of interest for the US. The policy of reviving this within the context of Venezuela has been coined the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ by the MAGA administration.
Even before these tensions escalated, questions were being raised about the legality of Trump’s actions in Venezuela. In December 2025, Trump implemented sanctions forbidding oil tankers from going in and out of the country. Experts warned that this maritime blockade may have violated the principles of international law. The arrest and capture of Maduro has only escalated questions over legality, as international law provides senior government figures with protection from foreign persecution whilst in office.
The situation in Venezuela signifies what seems to be an ever growing decline of international law. International law is a framework which defines States’ responsibilities in their treatment of their citizens, their boundaries and their interactions with each other. International law covers areas such as human rights, migration, war and trade. States may settle disputes at the International Court of Justice, however States do not have to participate in dispute resolution at the court or abide by its ruling as there is no overarching compulsory judicial system attached to international law. Therefore, international law is based on the trust that states will both abide by international law and enforce it. If States’ do not uphold their responsibilities as defined by international agreements, or place sanctions upon States who break the law, then the effectiveness of international law is diminished. By nature the trust based system is the foundation of international law which means that larger states, predominantly those in the Global North who have more influence on global trade, also have a more influential role in upholding the principles of international law.
Within recent years there have been concerns that the role of international law within international relations is being diminished. These concerns have been exacerbated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which defied core principles of state sovereignty but was met with no direct military intervention from the international community, despite mass condemnation from Global North countries. Likewise, war crimes committed in Israel’s war in Gaza and the humanitarian atrocities that are being committed in Sudan have also been met with little intervention, with many countries in the Global North continuing to fund and support Israel. Many critics argue that international law now only seems relevant ‘to its self-styled defenders in the Global North when it fits with their agenda’.
Similar concerns have been raised in regards to US action in Venezuela. The MAGA administration have largely cited their interventions within the country to benefit domestic agendas rather than using traditional frameworks for the justification of US foreign intervention such as promoting democracy, regional stability or human rights. This is seen through Trump’s concerns over migration from Venezuela to the US and his adamancy that the US will now effectively ‘run’ the country. Similarly, the US has also expressed interest in controlling Venezuelan oil exports, 80% of which are currently bought by China. It appears that within the case of Venezuela, the US is admitting that it is acting solely for its own interests. Many believe that this sets a precedent for other larger states, such as China and Russia, when it comes to state sovereignty, specifically with China’s actions in Taiwan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There are concerns that a precedent has been set that if a state is powerful enough, small states eventually become ‘up for grabs’ if it suits the agendas of a superpower.
Larger Global North states have to find the balance between looking out for their own interests and maintaining strong relations with the US as a massive global trade entity, and criticizing and sanctioning the breaking of international law in order to uphold its principles. This is the major downfall of international law as it only works to the ‘extent that elites, politicians and the public are willing to enforce it’. The principles and enforcement of international law are changing in a global political climate that is moving away from globalisation and neoliberal democracy to more protectionist unilateralist regimes, with the rise in global superpowers such as the US and China. If this precedent is set, smaller states may be put at risk to the agendas of larger countries, as international law is broken seemingly without consequence.
It is therefore up to international coordination through international institutions from other powerful states to uphold and enforce international law. This can more recently be seen with the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ summit whereby larger European countries, backed by the US, provided security guarantees for Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire. Similarly the Hague group, formed of eight countries from the Global South, promised to uphold the ruling from the international court of justice and agreed to coordinate measures, including restricting arms sales to Israel. It can therefore be seen that whilst international law is being challenged within a changing era of international relations, many states are still fighting to uphold the principle of international law and state sovereignty.
Leave a Reply