Lead: On 3 January 2026, former US president Donald Trump announced a “large-scale strike” in Venezuela in which troops, he said, captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores; both have since been indicted in New York on terrorism and drug charges. The claim that Maduro runs a “narco-terrorist organisation” was cited by US officials as justification. Leading international-law experts contacted by this report say the operation likely breaches the UN charter, and they question whether any recognized legal exception applies. The dispute has immediate diplomatic consequences and raises broader questions about enforcement of global law.
Key takeaways
- On 3 January 2026, US forces carried out an operation in Venezuela that, according to Donald Trump, captured Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores; New York indictments charge them with terrorism and drug offences.
- Multiple international-law scholars told reporters the strike likely violated the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)).
- Experts, including Geoffrey Robertson KC and Elvira Domínguez Redondo, described the act as unlawful and said it could amount to the crime of aggression.
- Legal justifications normally accepted—Security Council authorization or self-defence—appear, according to the experts, not to be present in the public record.
- The UN Security Council can impose sanctions, but any resolution targeting the US would face a veto from a permanent member and thus has limited practical effect.
- Commentators warn the absence of consequences could create precedent risks for other great powers, with China–Taiwan frequently cited as a potential flashpoint.
- UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the UK was not involved and has sought clarifications from the US, stressing adherence to international law.
Background
The legal framework governing interstate use of force is anchored in the UN Charter (signed October 1945). Article 2(4) broadly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, with only limited exceptions such as Security Council authorization or an established right of self-defence. Since the charter’s adoption, states and courts have treated those exceptions narrowly in order to reduce the risk of interstate war.
For decades, allegations that state officials or organisations sponsor transnational organised crime have complicated relations between affected states and third-party governments. The United States has periodically used sanctions, indictments and covert action to counter perceived threats from drug-trafficking networks; direct military intervention on sovereign territory without UN authorization, however, is rare and legally contentious. Past high-profile contested interventions, notably the 2003 Iraq invasion, have informed contemporary debates about when and whether force can be justified.
Main event
Donald Trump publicly announced the operation on the morning of 3 January 2026, describing it as a successful, “large-scale” strike that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores. US authorities have since disclosed indictments filed in New York charging the couple with terrorism-related and drug-trafficking offences. The US government has framed the operation as targeting a criminal network it calls a “narco-terrorist organisation” allegedly linked to the Venezuelan leadership.
Within hours, legal scholars and former judges were quoted assessing the action against the UN Charter and customary international law. Geoffrey Robertson KC, a former president of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, told reporters the operation appears inconsistent with Article 2(4) and could constitute the crime of aggression. Other academics, including Elvira Domínguez Redondo (Kingston University) and Susan Breau (Institute of Advanced Legal Studies), gave similar legal assessments, saying the public record lacks evidence of Security Council authorization or a credible self-defence claim.
US officials are expected to set out a formal legal rationale, likely invoking extraordinary measures against organised criminal networks that pose transnational harm. To date, however, the available public statements have not identified an imminent armed attack from Venezuela against the United States, a factual predicate generally required for invoking anticipatory self-defence under international law.
Analysis & implications
Under the UN Charter, the lawful use of force requires either Security Council authorization under Chapter VII or a genuine self-defence claim under Article 51. Legal commentators in this case say neither element is presently demonstrable in public evidence. A Security Council resolution authorizing force would be the clearest lawful basis, but any attempt to pass a resolution criticizing or sanctioning the US faces the practical obstacle of a US veto as a permanent Security Council member.
Self-defence can justify limited uses of force, including anticipatory measures in narrowly defined circumstances, but it requires an objectively reasonable belief in an imminent armed attack. Experts interviewed dismiss the prospect that the Venezuelan state posed an imminent kinetic threat to US territory, and they stress that allegations about narcotics—even if grave—do not by themselves convert criminal activity into an armed attack warranting interstate military response.
A finding of impunity for a powerful state can have systemic consequences. If the US faces no meaningful institutional or political consequences, other states may feel emboldened to reinterpret legal limits on force, increasing the risk of interstate confrontations. Commentators warn that strategic adversaries could exploit such precedents in contested theatres, raising the stakes for global stability and for institutions designed to prevent great-power escalation.
Comparison & data
| Year | Intervention | UN Authorization |
|---|---|---|
| 2003 | US-led invasion of Iraq | No UN Security Council authorization |
| 2011 | International action in Libya | UNSC Resolution 1973 (authorization) |
| 2026 | US operation in Venezuela | No public Security Council authorization reported |
The table highlights recent major uses of force and their different legal postures. The 2003 Iraq action proceeded without UN authorization and remains legally contested; the 2011 Libya intervention had explicit UNSC backing; the Venezuela operation, as reported publicly, lacks evidence of comparable Security Council approval. These distinctions matter because UN authorization alters the international-legal assessment and political feasibility of post-action remedies.
Reactions & quotes
“The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter. It has committed the crime of aggression.”
Geoffrey Robertson KC (legal scholar)
“There is just no evidence whatsoever” of Security Council authorization or lawful self-defence to justify the strike.
Susan Breau (international law professor)
“We should all uphold international law,” has been the public posture of the UK prime minister while seeking further facts from the United States.
Keir Starmer (UK prime minister)
Unconfirmed
- The US claim that the operation was an act of lawful self-defence has not been substantiated by publicly available evidence demonstrating an imminent armed attack by Venezuelan state forces.
- Public evidence linking Nicolás Maduro personally and directly to the command of the specific “narco-terrorist” network targeted in the strike remains contested and has not been independently verified in this reporting.
- Whether any classified intelligence exists that would alter the legal assessment (for example, showing an imminent cross-border attack) has not been disclosed.
Bottom line
The operation announced on 3 January 2026 has immediate legal and political ramifications: specialists argue it likely breaches core UN Charter obligations unless the US can produce evidence of a narrow self-defence justification or obtain retrospective Security Council endorsement. Given the United States’ position as a permanent Security Council member with veto power, institutional remedies are limited and political responses will vary across states.
Beyond the immediate incident, the episode raises systemic questions about enforcement of international law and the risks posed when powerful states act unilaterally. Observers and allied governments will watch closely for the US government’s formal legal explanation, any evidence it can present, and the international community’s response — all of which will shape whether this event becomes an isolated controversy or a precedent with wider strategic consequences.
Sources
- The Guardian — original reporting (UK national newspaper)
- United Nations — UN Charter (Article 2(4), Article 51) (official UN text)
- International Criminal Court — crime of aggression (international tribunal / legal framework)