2026 Begins by Asking, Is International Law Fit for Purpose?
2026 has begun with uncomfortable questions about accountability, sovereignty, and whether the system actually works.
2026 has started with major questions in the wake of 'Operation Absolute Resolve'. Fierce debate has erupted amongst international law experts. But beyond the immediate legal arguments, this episode in Venezula raises a more fundamental question: is international law actually fit for purpose?
The Legal Framework
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another state's territorial integrity except in cases of self-defence or Security Council authorisation. The Trump administration framed the operation as law enforcement, not war. Yet most scholars have rejected this characterisation. Professor Elvira Domínguez-Redondo of Kingston University stated it was an act of aggression with 'no evidence whatsoever' of legal justification. Professor Michael N. Schmitt and colleagues concluded it amounts to 'a severe breach of foundational principles of international law'.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called it a 'dangerous precedent', noting that 'the rules of international law have not been respected'. The scale of the operation, involving strikes on military targets and special forces deployment, makes the 'law enforcement' label difficult to sustain.
When Law Meets Reality
But here's where legal clarity collides with messy reality. Maduro's regime has been credibly accused of widespread human rights violations, drug trafficking, and electoral fraud. Venezuela refused extradition requests. The UN Security Council, paralysed by geopolitical rivalries, was never going to authorise action. Maduro faced a 2020 US indictment but remained untouchable in Caracas, protected by sovereignty.
This creates a genuine dilemma. If international law provides no mechanism for holding autocratic leaders accountable when their states won't cooperate and the Security Council remains deadlocked, does the law become a shield for impunity? Or is strict adherence to sovereignty the only thing preventing chaos?
The Precedent Problem
Professor Sultan Barakat warned that the US actions could encourage Russia or China to pursue similar extraterritorial operations. Yet this 'precedent' argument assumes powerful states make decisions based on legal permission rather than capability and interest. Didn't Russia already invade Ukraine without such precedent?
The uncomfortable truth is that international law has always struggled with enforcement against powerful actors. As one expert observed, 'international law is not "dead" just because the most powerful no longer respect it. Breaches of the law are normal in any legal system'. But when breaches become routine and enforcement remains toothless, at what point does the law lose its normative force?
Selective Application
The selective invocation of international law norms undermines credibility. Russia condemned the US operation as 'armed aggression' despite its own invasion of Ukraine. Some Western states offered only muted criticism without actually justifying the intervention under international law.
When legal principles are invoked or ignored based on political alignment rather than consistent application, the law resembles a rhetorical tool rather than a binding framework. The Legal Integrity Project has highlighted how misusing precise legal terms like 'genocide' erodes their power. The Venezuela case raises similar concerns about how terms like 'self-defence', 'law enforcement', and 'sovereignty' are deployed strategically rather than consistently.
What About Accountability?
Alex Neve of the UN's investigative team noted: alleged violations don't justify breaching international law, but the illegality of such intervention doesn't diminish Venezuelan officials' responsibility for crimes against humanity. This captures the dilemma perfectly. International law should provide legitimate pathways to accountability, but what happens when those pathways are blocked by political reality?
Fit for Purpose?
International law serves important functions: it provides shared normative frameworks, protects weaker states, and facilitates cooperation. But it also has significant limitations. It lacks reliable enforcement against powerful actors. The Security Council is paralysed by veto power. Sovereignty can protect abusive regimes whilst preventing intervention to protect suffering populations. And it's applied inconsistently.
The Venezuela crisis exposes these tensions starkly. Chatham House concluded that 'it is difficult to conceive of possible legal justifications' for the operation. From a doctrinal perspective, this assessment is sound. Yet practically, the operation also highlights international law's inability to provide accountability mechanisms when regimes refuse cooperation and the Security Council remains deadlocked.
Moving Forward
Simply declaring operations 'illegal' without addressing the accountability vacuum that prompted them won't strengthen international law. Neither will abandoning legal constraints whenever one considers action justified. For the system to maintain credibility, several things are necessary:
States must apply legal principles consistently. Legal terms must be used precisely. Stretching definitions to fit political narratives, whether calling military operations 'law enforcement' or misapplying terms like 'genocide', erodes legal language's power. The international community needs mechanisms for accountability that can function even when states and the Security Council are uncooperative. And we must have honest conversations about international law's limitations.
Conclusion
The US operation almost certainly violated international law as currently understood. But the situation that prompted it, where an indicted leader accused of serious crimes remained beyond reach because legal mechanisms proved inadequate, also reveals the system's failings.
What we cannot afford is selective adherence where international law is invoked when convenient and ignored when inconvenient, or where legal terms are misused to advance political goals. Precision, consistency, and honesty about both the value and limitations of international law are essential if it is to remain meaningful.
The Venezuela crisis should prompt not just debate about this specific operation's legality, but broader reflection on whether international law, as currently structured, can address 21st-century challenges. That's a conversation worth having.