After Venezuela

On the 4th of January 2026, the United States carried out a military operation in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Alexandra Hofer, international law expert at Utrecht University, sees the attack on Venezuela not as an isolated event, but as the outcome of multiple violations of the international legal system. The trouble for her is not so much whether Trump´s actions are illegal (from a legal perspective, they clearly are), but how far he can go if the other states do not set limits. “We are heading into a world where 'might makes right’.”

Why has Trump’s attack on Venezuela provoked so much shock, when the United States has taken similar actions before in other countries like Afghanistan or Iraq?

“It is true that such attacks on third states are, unfortunately, not uncommon. But what is unprecedented is that a state kidnaps the sitting head of state of another country. The US has a history of interference with regime change in Latin America, but it has generally done so through covert operations, such as financing and arming rebel groups in conflict with the sitting government. 

Furthermore, the US barely attempts to provide a justification for its intervention in Venezuela under international law. When the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, it gave legal arguments for its actions that were based on the rules that regulate the use of force between states. In the case of Afghanistan, the US's main argument was based on self-defense; in Iraq, it was justified by invoking a UN Security Council resolution that had authorized the use of force in 1990. These arguments were not particularly convincing, but at least there was some engagement with international law. We are hardly seeing any of that in the case of Venezuela."

Venezuela has been subject to multiple US acts that violate international law.

What does international law say about Trump’s attack on Venezuela and the capture of Maduro and his wife? 

 “From a legal perspective, such action is clearly a violation of multiple norms that lie at the core of the international legal system. In using force to kidnap Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, the US breached Venezuela's territorial integrity and sovereignty in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter; its actions probably amount to an act of aggression. It has violated the principle of non-intervention in forcefully changing who is the head of state (even though the government has not fundamentally changed). And in bringing Maduro to trial it has breached the personal immunity he enjoys as head of state. All these norms are in place to ensure that states can co-exist peacefully and that their sovereignty will be respected.

I should also add that Venezuela has been subject to multiple US acts that violate international law, such as the targeting of Venezuelan boats, the blockade that has been imposed, Trump's announcement that the US will 'run' Venezuela, etc.”

Given the US’ recent attack on Venezuela and current threats toward other countries, such as Cuba, Iran or Greenland, how do repeated unilateral actions by a powerful state affect the credibility and enforcement of international law?

“As mentioned, unilateral threats and attacks are not uncommon. States rather frequently violate the norms that regulate the use of force. When this happens, it is important that third states react to condemn these breaches and insist on their cessation. The Trump administration's breaches are disconcerting, but what I find most troubling is the weak response from Europe, especially if we consider that the 'West' has been so forceful in its reaction to Russia's aggression against Ukraine."

From your point of view, how should Europe respond towards US actions? 

"While it would be unrealistic to expect Europe to adopt sanctions in the same way it did against Russia in 2022 (which may also be an issue for the legitimacy of sanctions as an enforcement tool, but that is another topic), at the very least European states should invoke international law and condemn the violations that took place. Instead, British Prime Minister Starmer claimed he needed "more facts" before making a statement, and French President Macron's first reaction was to state that it is time for Venezuela to transition to a democracy. Neither leader referred to international law. Other states, such as Spain and Switzerland, explicitly denounced the US's intervention."

Repeated violations and their acceptance, or weak condemnations, will ultimately reshape the international legal system.

What’s the biggest worry for international lawyers in view of today’s developments?

“In the face of brazen violations, continued threats and rather lukewarm condemnations, international lawyers are probably concerned that their discipline is becoming irrelevant and that we are heading into a world where 'might makes right’.”

Can these repeated violations risk reshaping what is seen as acceptable under international law? 

“International law is essentially a social practice; it is created through repeated actions and speech acts. If everyone adopts the same practice, this strengthens international law. However, if practices start to change with little resistance or if they are accepted, then they start to become the 'new norm'. In essence, these repeated violations and their acceptance, or weak condemnations, by third states will ultimately reshape the international legal system.”