During the midnight of January 2, 2026, the United States -U.S.- carried out a coordinated military operation on Venezuela. According to official statements from the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Caine, the operation involved more than 150 aircraft and ground forces. In just four hours, U.S. troops entered Venezuela, bombed certain targets, captured Nicolás Maduro, and withdrew from the country with him. Independent verification regarding civilian casualties and the full scope of damage remains unavailable, including whether the strikes were strictly limited to military targets or extended to civilian people and infrastructure; apparently the Legislative building, a civilian airport, nearby homes, and oil facilities.
However, what happened in Venezuela is far more consequential than the possible end of a 26-year revolutionary regime. Beyond the immediate military success could lie a deeper and more troubling global affairs question: are we witnessing a decisive rupture in the already fragile architecture of international law? This operation could put tension between two international law principles: the preservation of a rules-based global order designed to restrain the use of force and the protection of civilian populations from international crimes.
It is clear that many, including Venezuelan expats, celebrates the fall of a man whose rule symbolized repression, economic collapse, institutional failure, and mass suffering. As a Colombian, I share the relief felt by millions of Venezuelans in exile or under authoritarian rule. But the true danger lies not in what happened during those four hours, but in what could come next both for the people and for the global order. That is, when international law proves incapable of constraining the actions that goes against its principles, the precedent set today could shape a far more unstable and violent global order tomorrow involving China, Russia, North Korea, and more.
The operation and the battle of principles
Nicolás Maduro’s regime presided over one of the most devastating political and humanitarian crises in modern Latin American history. Nearly 8 million people have left (or been forced to leave) Venezuela to multiple regions in the world; a majority based in Colombia, while many others risked their lives crossing the Darien Gap to reach the U.S. Systematic violations of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, protests oppression, torture, enforced disappearances, and the persecution of political opponents were widely documented by the UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, and other international human rights organizations. Economic mismanagement led the country to hyperinflation and proliferation of social instability.
According to Secretary Marco Rubio, multiple diplomatic avenues were offered to Maduro to facilitate a peaceful exit and a negotiated transition, all of which were reportedly rejected. On that basis, the operation was described not as an “act of aggression”, but as the “capture of an indicted terrorist”. This shift in the U.S. narrative could be pointing that battle of principles and the possible intended outcome of the operation: to send a “force message” to the adversaries, such as China or Russia, that now great western powers will bypass international law if necessary.
In that regard, at a time where President Trump continues to express his intention to adhere Greenland, where the situation in Taiwan remains critical, and where the war in Ukraine continues with no clear end, this operation sets a problematic preceding that the U.S. will not adhere to international law principles and will not restrain its acts of aggression when strategic interests are at stake. But one of the immediate consequences of this operation could be the opposite of what the U.S. intended by endangering its national security interests: it could motivate China or Russia to commit acts of aggression under the same logic of impunity that current international law creates.
U.S. leadership in international law
The United States has historically played a significant role in international law, mainly by constructing and defending the very legal order it is now bypassing (see Chayes, Antonia, 2008). During the definition of the U.N Charter, the Geneva Conventions, War Crimes, the Human Rights protocols, and more, the U.S. was not merely a participant but a principal architect. Core principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, U.N. Peace Missions, the respect for state sovereignty, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, were designed precisely to prevent unilateral military actions justified by political or moral urgency. Thus, what could eventually come from this behavior is a different global order, similar to the one that ruled pre-WWII, in which force was the main tool.
For decades, the United States has increasingly assumed the role of global enforcer with multiple cases around the world -especially Latin America-; a role that should not be in U.S. responsibility. It is a responsibility that should be, in the best scenario, in the hands of a deeply reformed United Nations or another multilateral independent international body, due to U.N.’s current and absolute lack of capacity to address global problems.
Perhaps, the most concerning point for this new international global order is the apparent absence of effective checks and balances on all the military conducts that we are witnessing today around the globe (Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, possible China-Taiwan, U.S.-Venezuela, etc.), rather than those imposed by the great powers themselves. It is important to remember that international law and the U.N. Charter were created precisely to prevent aggressions and to offer mechanisms to promote peace in the world. Yet, global institutions offer limited mechanisms to control these military conducts from powerful states. A rules-based order will not survive if its principles are applied only when convenient.
What Comes Next
This operation and what is happening today should point to a correction of course of the global order rather than a merely triumph of military force. The U.S. should realign its foreign policy with the foundational principles of international law and sovereignty it helped create. Leadership in the international system should not be measured solely by military and dissuasive capacity, but by the willingness to submit power to law in a rules-based multilateral order.
In addition, the Venezuelan people deserve a peaceful and democratic transition to a legitimate Government. That process must include free and fair elections without any external intervention, the restoration of democratic institutions, and international support led by multilateral actors such as a deeply-reformed United Nations. Stability imposed from outside cannot substitute for sovereignty exercised by citizens.
Finally, the current geopolitical situation presents a broader truth: international law and global governance are in urgent need of reform. The current system lacks credible mechanisms to prevent unilateral uses of force or to hold any state accountable. In this path, the erosion of international law will continue until norms become optional and power becomes the only arbiter. The question, then, is not only whether international law survived the events in Venezuela, but whether the international community is willing to reform it before the next precedent is set.