International Community Debates Legality of U.S. Operation to Capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro
The United Nations Security Council is scheduled to convene on Monday, January 5, 2026, to examine the legality of the United States military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 2, 2026. The operation involved U.S. Special Forces conducting strikes on Venezuelan military installations, temporarily disrupting power in parts of Caracas, and seizing Maduro along with his wife, Cilia Flores. Maduro is currently detained in New York and is set to appear in court on drug-related charges, stemming from a 2020 indictment for narco-terrorism conspiracy, which he has consistently denied.
United States officials have described Maduro as an illegitimate leader and a major figure in international drug trafficking, allegedly coordinating with foreign powers including China, Russia, and Iran, as well as groups linked to regional instability. The operation included targeted strikes on military sites, and images released show Maduro in custody alongside U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration personnel upon arrival at a New York-area air base. Additional indictments unsealed following the operation accuse members of Maduro's inner circle of operating a large-scale cocaine trafficking network aimed at the United States.
The U.S. government has invoked self-defense provisions under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to justify the action, asserting that ongoing threats from drug trafficking and associated activities constituted sufficient grounds for intervention. However, numerous international legal experts have challenged this position, arguing that the operation lacked authorization from the UN Security Council, did not receive consent from Venezuela, and did not meet the threshold of responding to an armed attack. Drug smuggling, they contend, does not qualify as an armed attack under international law, and the forcible removal of a sitting head of state violates principles of territorial integrity and political independence outlined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Experts have further noted that even if concerns exist about a leader's legitimacy, such issues do not provide a legal basis for unilateral military force on foreign soil. The action has also been criticized as infringing on the immunity typically afforded to heads of state actively performing official functions.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has expressed concern that the operation establishes a dangerous precedent for international relations. Allies of Venezuela, including Russia, China, and Iran, have strongly condemned the strikes as acts of aggression and violations of the UN Charter, calling for collective international response. European leaders have emphasized the importance of adhering to principles against the use of force, with some highlighting respect for international law while avoiding direct confrontation with the United States. Other nations in Latin America, such as Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, have similarly denounced the intervention.
Within Venezuela, authorities reported casualties among government and military officials during the strikes, though specific figures remain unconfirmed. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has assumed interim leadership, backed by the country's supreme court, and the armed forces have been mobilized to maintain national sovereignty. The Venezuelan government has characterized the operation as a grave military aggression targeting both civilian and military locations.
The Security Council's discussion is unlikely to result in formal measures against the United States due to its permanent member status and veto power. The event marks one of the most significant direct U.S. interventions in Latin America in decades, drawing comparisons to past operations while raising broader questions about the application of international law in addressing transnational threats like drug trafficking.
This development occurs amid ongoing geopolitical tensions, with the U.S. maintaining that the action addresses direct threats to national security and regional stability. The outcome of Maduro's legal proceedings in the United States, combined with the UN deliberations, will likely influence future diplomatic relations and interpretations of sovereign immunity in cases involving alleged criminal activity by state leaders.