Large scale US military strike against the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela and the capturing of president Nicolas Maduro and his wife, is a major escalation after months of threats and aerial attacks on 33 alleged drug boats, killing at least 112 people, since early September 2025, in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
The UN Charter generally prohibits attacking another State, primarily under Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against another State’s territorial integrity or independence, with exceptions for self-defence (Article 51) or UN Security Council authorisation (Charter VII). States must first try peaceful dispute resolution (Chapter VI), but if an “armed attack” occurs, they have inherent right to individual or collective self-defence until the Security Council acts.
In addition, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter says: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
However, the role of the UN Security Council is to maintain international peace and security, making it the most powerful body. But its composition and effectiveness leave much to be desired and is being described by many world leaders and academics as a “toothless bulldog”, hence a demand for its urgent reform.
International immunities
In essence, under customary international law, a serving head of State enjoys absolute immunity (ratione personae) from foreign criminal jurisdiction. According to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Warrant Case (2002), foreign courts cannot prosecute a sitting leader, even for war crimes, to ensure they can perform their diplomatic duties without fear of arrest.
Heads of State are not explicitly named for protection in the Geneva Conventions, which focus on non-combatants, but they benefit from international law’s general principle of immunity while in office, even from prosecution for war crimes, as established by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Their representation of the State grants functional immunity, protecting them in foreign lands. However, this immunity doesn’t extend to grave breaches of the Conventions once they leave office, and States must pursue perpetrators, leading to ongoing debate about accountability for atrocities.
Also, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirms that heads of State enjoy immunity from jurisdiction in other States for acts performed while in office, including serious crimes like torture or genocide. As principal representatives of their State, they are granted immunities as an attribute to their office, not personal right, allowing them to act on behalf of their nation.
The Convention obligate states to search for, try, or extradite individuals who commit “grave breaches”, but this applies to perpetrators of atrocities, not necessarily current heads of State enjoying immunity.
In contrast, while member States of the UN are automatically parties to court statutes, meaning they can bring a case before the court, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the ICJ has jurisdiction over them. The U.S., for instance, withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.
Accountability & limitations
Heads of State are protected by broader international law principles of sovereign immunity. While immunity protects heads of State during their tenure, international laws increasingly confront the tension between this immunity and the need to prosecute heads of State for atrocities. Thus, immunity generally ends when they leave office, allowing for potential prosecution for crimes like treason or war crimes by national courts.
Criminal indictment
The feeble criminal indictment against Maduro alleges that he and other top Venezuelan public officials have, for the past two decades, worked closely with international drug trafficking organisations to ship illicit drugs into the U.S., while enriching themselves. The charges include “narco-terrorism” conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns, and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the US. The validity of the US complaint against president Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is likely to be challenged in the federal court in New York soon.
Seizing a foreign president
International law shields sitting presidents from arrest, abduction and deportation, but US domestic law differs. Under the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine, stemming from Ker v.
Illinois, 1886, it effectively states that a court’s power to try a defendant is not negated by how they were brought there.
Even if a foreign president is “kidnapped” in violation of international law, the US courts can still “legally” put them on trial and prosecute them, once they are on American soil. It is literally a show trial with predetermined outcomes.
In summary, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for the US to intervene militarily in Venezuela, nor has the U.S. been the victim of an ongoing or imminent act of aggression by Venezuela. If you define the US actions in Venezuela as an act of “force” within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, then yes, the US has deliberately engaged in a prohibited act, since none of the justifications apply.
The US is “acting like Satan on earth,” and can be better described as the “law of the jungle”, subjugating weaker and vulnerable nations.
Admittedly, the UN Security Council (UNSC) is widely considered weak and often ineffective due to P5 veto power paralysis, outdated structure, and geographic divisions preventing action on major conflicts, despite its mandate to maintain peace, leading to calls for urgent reform.
Its inability to act decisively often undermine its authority, showing it as more a forum of great power clashes than a guardian of global security.
The US behaviour is a typical act of imperialism, a ruling policy of establishing and enforcing the rule of a nation over outside peoples or countries, and practiced through gaining economic or political control of the region.
This aggression against Venezuela is part of the hegemonic dream done through ancient Monroe Doctrine of 1823, where European colonial powers were obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States of America’s (U.S.A.) exclusive sphere of interest and influence, and not to try to recolonise Latin America, because the US would aggressively intervene.
America has insatiable salivating greed and there can be no peace with its dominance in the world.
*Maj. Gen. (RTD) J. B Tjivikua is a Criminal Intelligence Analyst.