The US capture of Venezuela’s Maduro: An international legal analysis

Prof Marc Weller, Professor of International Law in the University’s POLIS department, argues that the US operation removing Maduro constitutes an unlawful use of force, violates Venezuelan sovereignty, and lacks any credible legal justification under the UN Charter.

In a video interview published on the University’s YouTube channel, Weller, a former Director of Cambridge’s Lauterpacht Centre for International Law who has served as Counsel in the International Court of Justice, dismisses US claims that the intervention was a law-enforcement action or a pro-democratic measure.

He points out that the United States has been unusually explicit about its motivation – access to Venezuelan oil – marking a dangerous departure from even the pretence of legality, which risks returning the world to a “19th century” international order when powerful states used force to seize resources.

“The US argues that it can now take over the oil sector in Venezuela, the richest oil deposits in the world,” said Weller. “And rather than having some sort of subterfuge explanation, such as democracy or self-defence, they are saying quite clearly, yes, that’s what we are hoping to do. And that is entirely unprecedented.”

Weller argues that such actions erode the international prohibition on the use of force, and warns that accepting US actions undermines Western opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and weakens constraints on nations such as China and India.

“The US operation in relation to Venezuela is clearly internationally unlawful, and it will be very important for the international community to identify it as an unlawful operation and to identify the US as a violator. Otherwise, the credibility of the international ecosystem will be severely undermined,” said Weller.

He describes the response from most European nations and the Security Council as disunited and “disappointing”, with condemnation from Denmark, which feels threatened over Greenland, and Spain, who are close to Latin America, but few others. The UK’s inability to condemn the US incursion as an unlawful act is a “failing”, says Weller.

“A state cannot use force to implement its national interest,” said Weller. “Be it its interest in capturing an alleged drug offender, its interest in recapturing oil that allegedly was stolen, or its interest in wanting to see somebody else in government in a foreign state.

“That is a violation not only of the sovereignty of Venezuela, but it is an offense against international law as a whole.”

Weller outlines concern over Venezuela’s future, warning that leaving existing power structures intact while prioritising oil demands could fuel instability and internal conflict. The US has “only removed the head of the snake, but the snake still wiggles… That government is now taking steps to repress the population to stay in power”.

For Weller, the international prohibition of the use of force is the “greatest civilisational achievement of mankind over the last 100,000 years or so”.

“The discovery that we do not want to live in a world where violence determines the way we have to live, where violence determines who owns our property,” he said.

“But how can we oppose the use of force by the Russian Federation in Ukraine if, at the same time, we accept it once undertaken by the US in other places. The essence of international law is that the same legal rules apply to all.”