US President Donald Trump’s Recent claims of being the acting president of Venezuela and comments after the dramatic capture of Venezuelan President Maduro that he doesn’t need international law but his own morality to contain his power have ignited fresh debates on international order. The air strikes on Venezuela by the US on 3rd January and the capture of Maduro have drawn large-scale condemnation from around the world, and global leaders who warned of the perilous precedent the US might set. The US indicted Maduro for his alleged narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of destructive weapons and machine guns and conspiracy to possess them.
However, the underlying intention behind the capture is clearly oil, which can be seen in Trump’s claims, as on the same day, he declared that Washington is “in charge of Venezuela” and announced that US oil companies would return to rebuild the country’s petroleum industry. Its disregard not only affects Venezuela but also sets a dangerous precedent for all state representatives, particularly those who are weaker. Additionally, irrespective of the intentions, Venezuelan people, regardless of support or condemnation of the event, have reported uncertainty and fear in the future due to the American course of action. This event is shocking and evokes medieval times when a powerful kingdom attacks another empire, captures its ruler, and claims its territory. However, those were times without international laws binding states to respect sovereignty. There were no global institutions, such as the United Nations, International Criminal Court, Geneva Convention, international human rights law and others. In recent times, the capture of the president constitutes a direct violation of international norms and the international legal order.
With the erosion of rule-based order, what is at stake here are the multilateral institutions established after World War II to prevent global conflict, restrain powerful states, and create a justice-based international order. The UN Charter, as enshrined in Article 2, upholds the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference among member states. It allows intervention only under humanitarian circumstances such as genocide, human rights crisis, war, and crimes against humanity. It is considered the normative backbone of the international system, which overtly forbids the use of force or involvement against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states. However, this is often misused by powerful nations against weaker nations to legitimise their unilateral or strategic actions.
For decades, these institutions have reduced perceived threats among states, allowing countries to prioritise human development and social welfare over excessive defence spending. Today, the credibility of international law and the authority of the UN are at stake. The UN appears weak and ineffective in a manner not seen before. If the UN is unable to take any action on the violation of international law, the message sent to the world is that international law is an optional and force is the true arbitrator of world order. That stabilising role, however, is now rapidly collapsing, particularly with the resurgence of power politics.
Countries with greater military capacity, such as the United States, Russia, and Israel, are demonstrating that they can act outside the agreed rules of the UN charter. The United States, while preaching democracy and its advancement, similarly carried out military strikes in Yemen and Iran in 2025. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is another clear violation of the UN core principles of territorial integrity and non-aggression. The war, which continues to this day, has led to widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, the displacement of millions, and the loss of countless lives. Though Russia faces several sanctions as a result of opposing the Western bloc, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is another incident that shows the normalisation of force over international law.
The recent Israel–Palestine conflict is another example of forceful annexation and how global institutions have been reduced to only aid-providing bodies without any conflict-containing or resolving role. Israel’s sustained bombardment of Gaza turned its besieged strip into an uninhabitable graveyard. Despite condemnation and allegations of committing genocide from several human rights organisations, including the UN, Israel and its allies, especially the US, have continued to pursue might while vehemently rejecting all the allegations. Whether it is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s aggression in Gaza, or the US actions in Venezuela, they all suggest the normalisation of force over international law. Together, despite differences in ideologies, they highlight a world order where sovereignty is protected by military capability and political alignments rather than established norms and institutions.
The capture of a sitting president from a sovereign country now marks a new low in the erosion of international law. In previous decades, interventions have been justified under the pretext of democracy and human rights. Currently, they are being openly framed in terms of resource control. Trump has gone further, threatening Colombia’s president Gustavo Petro by calling him a “sick man” and suggesting that Cuba’s government may soon collapse. He has also warned Iran that it would be hit “very hard” if protesters were killed during demonstrations triggered by a financial crisis that is ironically shaped by US sanctions and allied policies. Further, President Trump has also threatened Greenland with annexation for its strategic location, northern shipping routes and its natural resources despite severe criticism from the Greenlanders. Earlier, most interventions had ideological differences or bloc rivalry as underlying motives, but with the turn of events and especially US threats of taking over Greenland, suggests a turn in political strategy where a country is trying to attack the allied nations.
Also, decisions relating to intervention, war and regime change are increasingly taken individually beyond multilateral frameworks without abiding by international law. In the aftermath, countries, especially those near conflict zones, are compelled to divert massive portions of their budgets towards defence and pursue aggressive military build-ups, fearing that what happened in Iran, Lebanon, or Venezuela could happen to them as well. As a result, resources are steadily diverted from education, healthcare, and social welfare. Terrorism and drug trafficking are inevitable consequences of these kinds of interventions. Additionally, they also cause environmental harm. Together, these events contribute to an unstable world order threatening peace and the rule of law.
Allowing such acts to continue without any action is normalising the replacement of law by might and eroding the foundation of the collective security system. The historical struggle of the world to build peace is compromised by this hegemony, as powerful states are increasingly perceiving themselves free to intervene. Trade, which is historically a primary mechanism to access resources outside borders, is systematically bypassed, and outright territorial annexation is emerging as the preferred strategy, putting peace and security at stake. When law, based on the framework of justice and mutual respect, collapses, diplomacy weakens, and trust between states erodes; the consequence is might-makes-right world order pursued by endless militarisation.
In the case of Venezuela, coercive involvement not only fails to address any root causes of the “narco-terrorism” but also actively contributes to the uncertain future of the population, displacing traffic routes rather than withdrawal, increasing transnational criminal networks, expanding armed non-state actors, and igniting other conflicts in the region. The political instability in these scenarios leads to economic instability, livelihoods, and human development and ultimately leads to a profound loss of human dignity and justice. At a time when the world faces shared challenges such as pandemics, climate change, artificial intelligence, and deepening economic crises, weakening multilateral institutions and disregarding international law is profoundly counterproductive. It has also paralysed institutions like the United Nations, as was the case with the League of Nations’ failure to prevent wars. The crisis of world order is once again calling for a committed collective action. Without a renewed commitment to a rule-based order and cooperation, global problems will remain unresolved, further deepening global security concerns.
[Photo by the White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
Dr. Kuppili Lehari is a junior Project Fellow at NCERT, specialising in International Relations and Central Asian studies.
Dr. Jiyaul Haque is a Researcher at Project Mishkat and a specialist in Development Studies, with a PhD from JNU, Delhi. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.
