This is how the United States violated international laws by kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro

Published at: 16/01/2026 05:00 PM

“The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro Moros, has been kidnapped , together with the first female combatant, Cilia Flores de Maduro, by the US government, in a barbaric, devious and cowardly fascist attack by Yankee imperialism, the main enemy and fundamental of the Venezuelan people, of the region and of the world,” said Deputy Luis Fernando Soto Rojas at the installation of the National Assembly (AN) on January 5th.

The kidnapping of President Maduro generated an almost unanimous condemnation from global leaders and multilateral institutions, who describe it as a flagrant violation of national sovereignty and of the most elementary principles of peaceful coexistence.

How were international laws specifically violated in the face of the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro?

By committing this atrocity, international law and the norms that regulate relations between States are victims of the U.S. military operation in Venezuela that culminated in the kidnapping of President Maduro and we detail below:

Article 2.4 of the UN Charter : the content of this article states that “the threat or use of war against the territorial integrity or political independence of a State is prohibited”.

Article 2.7 of the UN Charter : the content of this article states that it “prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of States”.

Article 1.2 of the UN Charter : its content describes as its purpose “to promote friendly relations, based on equal rights and the self-determination of States”.

Principle of Non-Intervention : Recognized by the International Court of Justice as a customary norm, which is an unwritten rule of conduct that emerges from the constant repetition of a practice accepted by a community as mandatory over time, thus acquiring the force of law.

This is reinforced by statements by experts in politics and international law such as Geoffrey Robertson, president of the United Nations (UN) Tribunal for war crimes in Sierra Leone and representative of Human Rights Watch in the trial against Augusto Pinochet, stated that the attack on the president of Venezuela is contrary to Article 2 of the UN Charter: “The reality is that the United States is violating the Charter of the United Nations, and committed a crime of aggression that in the Nuremberg Tribunal (where international military trials were carried out by the Allies after the Second World War to try the main Nazi leaders for crimes against peace, crimes of war and crimes against humanity) was described as a supreme crime, the worst of all.”

In the same vein, Susan Breau, professor of international law and researcher at the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London, explained that “the attack could only have been considered lawful if it had a resolution of the UN Security Council or acted in self-defense, she will also have to prove that these alleged drug traffickers threatened the country's sovereignty and there are no elements to support either of those two aspects”.

Breau added that “the United States vehemently argues that drug trafficking is a plague and that it is killing a lot of people, and I believe it too: drug trafficking kills. However, many experts in international law have been analyzing these accusations and there is not even clear evidence that the drug traffickers are from Venezuela, much less that they were led by Maduro in any way.”

However, Robertson is forceful in his response: “It is impossible to justify that the United States, although it will undoubtedly allege it, has acted in self-defense. To act in self-defense, you must have the real conviction that you are about to be attacked. Nothing and no one indicates that the Venezuelan army is about to attack the United States... The idea that Maduro is some kind of leader of a supposed drug cartel cannot prevail over the rule that the invasion for a change of government is illegal.”

Robertson also noted that “sanctions must be imposed by the Security Council, and the United States is a member with the right of veto. This is relevant, because it shows that this Council is a useless body. A country that violates international law can avoid conviction by simply vetoing it... the only body that can act will be immobilized by the American veto.”

Apparently, the world is in danger. Robertson warned that “if the United States does not face any punishment for the invasion of Venezuela, it may encourage third countries to carry out operations that contravene international law.”

In the same vein, Dr. Elvira Domínguez Redondo , professor of international law at Kingston University, stated that the lack of response to the attack in Venezuela further weakens the UN Security Council: “The Security Council was the mechanism of prevention of the Third World War and now it has been completely dismantled, mainly by the US, but also by the United Kingdom when they declared war without authorization in Iraq; the Security Council has been eroded”.

Likewise, Ezequiel Jiménez , doctor in International Law at the University of Middlesex in the United Kingdom, published in his account on the social network X that “the US attack sets a dangerous precedent. While it is true that the political situation in Venezuela may be different, an illegal armed foreign military intervention will not produce the desired political result and sets a dangerous precedent for a peaceful region of the world.”

The US attack on Venezuela has nothing to do with drug trafficking or terrorism, it is only the narrative that served to flagrantly violate the sovereignty of a country in order to seize its wealth. Unfortunately, this is just beginning. We Venezuelans are supported by reason and truth, and that truth is always revolutionary. We will win.

AMELYREN BASBE/Mazo News Team