International Law and the Dangerous Normalisation of Force
International Law and the Venezuela, Panama, and the Precedent the World Cannot Ignore
In international politics, precedent matters as much as power. When major powers act outside established legal frameworks, their actions rarely remain isolated; they reshape norms, embolden imitators, and weaken the fragile architecture meant to restrain war. Recent claims and debates surrounding United States military action against Venezuela—particularly suggestions of direct regime seizure—must therefore be examined not as isolated events, but as part of a longer, troubling pattern in global affairs.
History offers an instructive comparison. In 1989, the United States invaded Panama under Operation Just Cause, citing the protection of American nationals, the fight against drug trafficking, and the restoration of democracy. While the operation succeeded in removing General Manuel Noriega, it was widely criticised by international legal scholars and governments. The United Nations General Assembly subsequently passed a resolution condemning the invasion as a “flagrant violation of international law,” arguing that it breached the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention enshrined in the UN Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States.
That debate never truly ended. Instead, it has resurfaced repeatedly—in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere—each time raising the same fundamental question: does power confer legality?
Sovereignty and the Use of Force
Under international law, the use of force against a sovereign state is lawful only under narrowly defined circumstances: self-defense against an imminent armed attack or authorization by the UN Security Council. Humanitarian intervention remains a contested issue, and, crucially, it requires clear evidence of necessity, proportionality, and immediacy.
In the case of Panama, critics argued that none of these thresholds had been convincingly met. The country posed no imminent military threat to the United States, and diplomatic options had not been exhausted. Yet the intervention proceeded, popular domestically, contested internationally.
This tension between domestic approval and international legality is precisely what makes precedent dangerous. Once legal thresholds are blurred, they become malleable—not only for Washington, but for Moscow, Beijing, and others.
Venezuela and the Logic of Pressure
Relations between the United States and Venezuela have been strained for decades, deteriorating sharply after Hugo Chávez assumed power in 1999. Chávez’s anti-imperialist rhetoric, alliances with Cuba and Iran, and opposition to US-led wars placed Caracas firmly outside Washington’s strategic comfort zone. After his death in 2013, Nicolás Maduro inherited both a collapsing economy and an increasingly hostile international environment.
Over the years, US policy toward Venezuela has relied heavily on sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and legal pressure, including indictments linked to drug trafficking allegations. Washington has framed these measures as tools to defend democracy and regional stability, while Venezuelan authorities have described them as economic warfare aimed at regime change and control over the country’s vast oil reserves.
It is within this context that any discussion of direct military intervention must be approached with caution. Claims of targeted strikes, naval deployments, or attempts to remove a sitting head of state—if unverified—should be treated as analytical hypotheses, not established facts. The danger lies not only in what may have happened, but in what such actions would represent if normalised.
Constitutional Questions at Home
Even within the United States, the legality of unilateral military action remains contentious. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was designed to limit executive authority and require Congressional oversight. Recent interventions have repeatedly tested these limits, prompting bipartisan concern in Congress.
According to reporting by the New York Times, lawmakers have questioned whether certain overseas operations meet constitutional requirements absent formal authorisation. These debates underscore an often-overlooked truth: international legality and domestic legality are intertwined. When one is weakened, the other soon follows.
A Global Ripple Effect
The broader concern is not Venezuela alone. When powerful states act without clear legal mandate, they weaken the very norms they later invoke against others. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s posture toward Taiwan, and regional conflicts across Africa and the Middle East are all shaped—directly or indirectly—by earlier erosions of international restraint.
Africa, in particular, has felt the consequences of interventionist precedents. From Libya’s collapse to protracted instability in parts of the Sahel, external military actions have often produced power vacuums, prolonged conflict, and humanitarian crises, rather than sustainable peace. These experiences make African audiences especially sensitive to claims that force can be a shortcut to stability.
The Cost of Normalising Intervention
Proponents of intervention argue that military action can remove dictators, protect civilians, and restore order. Critics counter that such actions frequently produce unintended consequences: weakened institutions, armed militias, regional spillover, and long-term resentment. Both claims carry historical weight.
What is no longer defensible, however, is ambiguity. If international law is to mean anything, it must apply consistently—not selectively. The erosion of legal norms by one actor invites their exploitation by others, turning exceptional measures into routine tools of power.
A Moment for Restraint
The debate over Venezuela—real or hypothetical—should serve as a warning rather than a template. In a world already strained by great-power rivalry, economic uncertainty, and fragile states, the reckless use of force risks accelerating a descent into global instability.
International law is imperfect, often slow, and frequently violated. Yet it remains the only shared framework capable of restraining might with principle. Once abandoned, it is rarely replaced with something better.