March 13, 2026
On the morning of January 3, 2026, the United States, under the orders of President Donald Trump, launched a “large scale military operation” in Venezuela that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores [1]. Prior to Operation Absolute Resolve, the United States Navy executed strikes on suspected drug smuggling boats bound for the United States. As a result, tensions between the United States and Venezuela rose; concurrently, the U.S. planned the foundations of the operation, and ultimately entered Venezuela and ousted Maduro. Such invasion causes the United States to drift further into a problematic position in Latin American politics by facilitating regional instability and highlighting the nation’s apparent authority to issue and execute threats against the sovereignty of other nations. The United States’s brazen incursion into Venezuela underscores the ever-crumbling legitimacy of international law, following a consistent trend of violations of a rules-based order.
Years prior to the operation, the Southern District of New York Federal court issued a drug related indictment for President Maduro. A United States court issued the indictment, not an international court, prompting critical questions about the scope of American jurisdiction compared to international courts. International law, despite its ostensible global reach, is “applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim” according to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney [2]. The United States took advantage of this and violated the sovereignty of Venezuela to capture Maduro, despite a lack of prior international approval. Ignoring the jurisdictional issues, Maduro’s removal poses a potentially successful case for furthering democratic ideals globally given the Maduro regimes’ authoritarian tendencies. Specifically, election observers note that the former Venezuelan president likely did not win the 2024 presidential election and instead refused to relinquish power after the election [3]. Whether ousting Maduro will solve the underlying democratic issues in the country is still unknown; however, the aftermath of the operation leaves the Venezuelan government in an uncertain position managing their own sovereignty with the demands of the United States.
While the future of democratic Venezuela remains unclear, the Maduro ousting closely resembles Operation Just Cause in Panama executed by the H.W Bush administration in the early 1990s and provides insight into the results of American intervention in a non-democratic state. Both operations are keystone events in the American War on Drugs, which has long been used to skirt international law and justify American intervention. The Venezuelan operation is consistent with the precedent of sidestepping international law under the guise of protecting America that the Bush Administration established thirty years prior in Panama. Like Maduro, Panamanian leader General Manuel Noriega had an impending drug indictment in the United States, which provided a foundation for American troops to overthrow the general and bring him to the U.S to face his trial. Operation Just Cause was met with wide criticism from international law-making entities. The H.W. Bush administration justified the invasion as self-defense, which would satisfy the preconditions to use force under Article II of the United Nations’ charter. Nevertheless, the United Nations General Assembly issued condemnations of invasion on the operation, calling it a “flagrant violation of international law” [4]. The U.N. condemnation reinforces the illegality of using force without U.N. approval; however, without enforcement from the international community, such condemnation is futile, underscoring the collapsing effectiveness of the U.N.
While the legality of both the Venezuelan and Panamanian operations are debatable, the blatant disregard for international law becomes secondary to more critical questions regarding the legitimacy of international lawmaking entities. In the aftermath of the Maduro operation, the United Nations Security Council began debating the legality and the ramifications of the ousting. At its most fundamental level, the Security Council is made up of fifteen members, five permanent, and its primary role is to “maintain international peace and security” [5]. The permanent members, which includes the U.S., have a unilateral veto power and can quash any resolution the council debates. While the Council adopted no formal condemnation, the U.S.’s prominent veto power looms over the discussion and challenges the council to produce a meaningful response to the incursion [6]. The Security Council cannot effectively maintain peace when one of its members hamstrings discussions and undermines the council. Additionally, when the Council is undermined, its authority breaks down and tarnishes the validity of international diplomacy. Yet, despite the peace keeping intentions of the Council, the U.S. has largely operated as a hegemonic power in the Western hemisphere, and the operation in Venezuela is another example of such dominance.
Although American hegemony in Latin America is not a new concept, the current trend towards coercive policy tactics suggests a return to outdated foreign policy, which depends on other nations succumbing to American authority. In his 1823 address to Congress, President James Monroe declared that the U.S. rejected any European claims to the Western hemisphere, leaving the region to the U.S. and its interests, adopting what became known as the Monroe Doctrine [7]. The Monroe Doctrine combined with other policies like the Roosevelt Corollary, plagued Latin America with U.S. induced conflict. The Monroe Doctrine has largely been abandoned by subsequent administrations, so much so that President Obama’s Secretary of State, John Kerry, declared “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over” [8]. Despite its supposed fall, the Trump Administration’s actions in Venezuela revived the Monroe Doctrine, redubbed the ‘Donroe Doctrine.’ The Donroe Doctrine represents a jarring desire to return to diplomatically and militarily unstable Latin America of the nineteenth century, as the policy has the same potential to invite conflict with other nations. Specifically, the doctrine uses the military’s reputation as the primary solution to diplomatic problems.
While the United States’ invasion of Venezuela poses challenges to the legitimacy of global institutions, it also presents a unique opportunity for reform, allowing the United Nations to reassert its power as an international arbiter. The most salient issue the Council faces is the overuse of the unilateral veto power the permanent members hold, allowing the five permanent members (P5) to hold undue influence over the Council. Due to the P5 nations’ veto power, any one of the P5 can selectively block debate that is disadvantageous to said nation, favoring individual country’s gain rather than greater international good. This dysfunction is especially prevalent today in discussion of the Russian-Ukraine war and the Israeli Palestinian conflict, as two P5 nations, Russia and the United States, are either involved or closely allied. While the unilateral veto causes critical debate and discussion to come to a grinding halt, the veto also damages the reputation of the U.N. as an impartial arbiter of conflict and undermines the Council’s fundamental peacekeeping purpose. To remedy their crumbling reputation, the Council and U.N. must change the preconditions of unilateral veto; however, its abolishment is not the answer. Abolishing the veto is problematic because it would drastically change the power dynamic in the Security Council by majorly diluting the power of the P5. If the P5 completely loses their vast sway on the Council, the P5 are motivated to sidestep the Council and outsource diplomacy away from the U.N, sounding the death knell for the body.
Instead of wildly altering the power dynamic of the Council, the U.N. must adopt a mediated solution so that each member does not lose their current motivation but rather has renewed incentive to participate in international diplomacy. To keep the basis of the council intact, reforms to the veto power must keep the P5 as leaders on the council but allow for voices of other nations to carry similar weight. Currently proposed reforms include adding mechanisms to override a veto, requiring multi-member support, and disallowing a veto in certain cases [9]. An override and multi-member support force the P5 members to justify their veto to the Council, which helps mitigate nations’ vetoes purely on the basis of individual gain. Limiting the use of the veto in certain cases also ensures that the Council does not become paralyzed when facing crucial humanitarian crises. Keeping debate and discussion going during challenging times is the key to reforming veto power and would address structural issues that hinder U.N. action. Empowering the U.N. to act puts greater power in their hands to mediate, like in the Venezuelan American conflict.
Restoring the legitimacy and reputation of the United Nations becomes an increasingly salient issue in today’s global order because of the unpredictability and unabashed lawlessness that occurs on the global stage. In his address at Davos, Mark Carney noted that the notion of the “rules-based order is fading,” and it is time to recognize it as “great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests” [2]. In the world Carney describes, the United States, atop its hegemonic tower, gets to invade sovereign nations, while all that’s left for the middle powers is to band together and holler about the gross violations of international law. Yet this world is reality. The world where America gets to wage war in all corners of the world, from Venezuela to Iran, and builds its own Board of Peace when it gets tired of the United Nations. That is the result of the falling rules-based order. Repairing the United Nations’ reputation may not stop the world that Carney described from happening, but it remains essential for preserving even an appearance of international accountability in an era defined by the destruction of norms.
Image Credits: talkbusiness.net/2026/01/cotton-crawford-applaud-venezuela-invasion-maduro-arrest/
Works Cited
[1] @WhiteHouse. X (Formerly known as Twitter), January 3, 2026, 2026.
[2] Carney, Mark. “Special Address by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada.” Paper presented at the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland, January 20, 2026 2026.
[3] Javier Corrales, Dorothy Kronick. “How Maduro Stole Venezuela’s Vote.” Journal of Democracy 36, no. 1 (2025): 36-49.
[4] Effects of the Military Intervention by the United States of America in Panama on the Situation in Central America. 1989.
[5] “Peace and Security.” United Nations, main.un.org/securitycouncil/en.
[6] In Hindsight: The Security Council’s Muted Response to the Venezuela Crisis. Security Council Report (New York, New York: February 2, 2026).
[7] “Monroe Doctrine (1823).” National Archives, archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine.
[8] “Remarks on U.S. Policy in the Western Hemisphere.” news release., 2013, 2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/11/217680.
[9] Archibugi, Daniele, “Reforming the UN Security Council: EnLargeMent Is Not Enough.” Democracy without Borders, June 9, 2025, 2025, democracywithoutborders.org/36950/reforming-the-un-security-council-enlargement-is-not-enough/.
Policy & Political Review 