Key Takeaways
- The United States’ attack on Venezuela on January 3, 2026, was a violation of international law, including the UN Charter and the OAS Charter.
- The attack was part of a long-standing hybrid war against Venezuela’s Bolivarian process, which began in 2001.
- The US’s actions, including the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, are a clear violation of the principles of non-intervention and head-of-state immunity.
- The US’s disregard for international law is a demonstration of its "mafia-type power" in the world.
- The attack on Venezuela raises issues under US law, including the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
Introduction to the Conflict
The United States’ attack on Venezuela on January 3, 2026, was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a long-standing hybrid war against the country’s Bolivarian process. This war began in 2001, after the passage of the Organic Law of Hydrocarbons, which disadvantaged oil conglomerates, most of them from the United States. The US government, in collaboration with these conglomerates, has since worked to overthrow the government of Venezuela and undermine its socialist policies. The attack on January 3, 2026, which included the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores, is a clear escalation of this conflict.
The Illegality of the Attack
The US’s attack on Venezuela is a clear violation of international law. The UN Charter, which is the highest treaty obligation in the interstate system, prohibits the use of force against another state, except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council. The US’s actions on January 3, 2026, do not meet these exceptions, and therefore, the attack is a clear violation of the UN Charter. Additionally, the OAS Charter, which is a regional treaty, also prohibits the use of force against another state, and the US’s actions are a clear violation of this treaty as well.
Principles of International Law
The principles of international law, including the prohibition of the threat or use of force, non-intervention in the internal or external affairs of a state, and head-of-state immunity, are all relevant to the US’s attack on Venezuela. The ICJ has consistently upheld these principles, including in the case of Nicaragua vs. United States, where the court affirmed the customary-law principle of non-intervention and applied the rules on the use of force and self-defense. The US’s actions, including the kidnapping of President Maduro and Cilia Flores, are a clear violation of these principles.
Head-of-State Immunity
The US’s assertion of criminal jurisdiction over President Maduro and Cilia Flores is a clear violation of head-of-state immunity, which is a fundamental principle of international law. This principle is designed to ensure that states can conduct relations without foreign courts seizing one another’s top officials. The ICJ has consistently upheld this principle, including in the case of Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, where the court held that the incumbent foreign minister enjoyed "immunity from criminal jurisdiction" and "inviolability" under international law.
US Law and the Attack
The US’s attack on Venezuela also raises issues under US law, including the 1973 War Powers Resolution. This resolution requires the US president to consult with Congress before introducing US armed forces into hostilities with any state and to report to Congress within 48 hours. The US’s failure to comply with this resolution is a clear violation of US law and demonstrates the US’s contempt for both international and domestic law.
Conclusion
The US’s attack on Venezuela on January 3, 2026, is a clear violation of international law and a demonstration of the US’s "mafia-type power" in the world. The attack is part of a long-standing hybrid war against Venezuela’s Bolivarian process, which began in 2001. The US’s actions, including the kidnapping of President Maduro and Cilia Flores, are a clear violation of the principles of non-intervention and head-of-state immunity. The US’s disregard for international law is a threat to global peace and security, and it is essential that the international community takes action to hold the US accountable for its actions. As the song "Los que mueren por la vida" says, "Those who die for life cannot be called dead," and the struggle for socialism and self-determination in Venezuela will continue, despite the US’s efforts to undermine it.