U.S. Intervention in Venezuela and the Crisis of State Sovereignty in International Law
U.S. Intervention in Venezuela and the Crisis of State Sovereignty in International Law
An opinion article on U.S. intervention in Venezuela and its implications for state sovereignty and the contemporary international legal order.
Data de publicação: 24 de janeiro de 2026
Publication date: January 24, 2026
Nota Editorial
O presente texto integra a seção Artigos de Opinião da Pensar – Revista de Ciências Jurídicas.
As ideias e posicionamentos nele expressos são de inteira responsabilidade do autor, não refletindo, necessariamente, a opinião institucional da revista, de seu Conselho Editorial ou da Universidade de Fortaleza.
Author
Khalid Cherkaoui Semmouni
Professor of Constitutional and International Law (Morocco)
Director of the Rabat Center for Political and Strategic Studies
Editorial Introduction
In this opinion article, Professor Khalid Cherkaoui Semmouni analyzes the legal and political implications of U.S. intervention in Venezuela, emphasizing the erosion of state sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention, and the fragility of the contemporary international legal order.
Article
The United States’ intervention in Venezuela constitutes a serious violation of the principle of state sovereignty, which is one of the fundamental pillars of public international law. State sovereignty is not merely a political concept or a diplomatic slogan; rather, it is a legal rule enshrined in international charters, foremost among them the Charter of the United Nations, which affirms respect for the independence and sovereignty of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, and the prohibition of aggression against states, as well as the use or threat of force in international relations.
U.S. policies toward Venezuela—whether through the imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions, the exercise of political pressure, or support for attempts to change the existing regime following the forcible removal of the Venezuelan president—represent a clear breach of a set of well-established legal principles. Most notably, these include the principle of non-intervention, the principle of the sovereign equality of states, and the prohibition on the use of force stipulated in Article 2 of the UN Charter, in addition to their inconsistency with the rules of customary international law. The forcible alteration of the political system of a sovereign state constitutes a direct assault on the will of the people and the legitimacy of its national institutions.
The danger of this intervention is not limited to its immediate effects within Venezuela; it extends to undermining the international legal order itself. What is most alarming is the normalization of such violations within the contemporary international system, where breaches of international law are often met with silence or justification, particularly when committed by major powers. It is evident that grave violations of international law—whether by the United States or other influential states—occur amid the inability of the UN Security Council to fulfill its mandated role in maintaining international peace and security, due to the dominance of political and interest-based considerations.
This reality reflects a double standard in the application of international legal rules, whereby enforcement mechanisms are activated against certain states while suspended when it comes to allies of major powers. This leads to an erosion of trust in the international system, weakens its legitimacy, and transforms it from a binding legal framework into an instrument serving power balances.
Moreover, external interventions are often linked to economic and strategic objectives, with slogans of democracy and human rights used as a cover to achieve dominance over natural resources, control markets, and enhance geopolitical influence. This coincides with the rise of political trends characterized by authoritarian tendencies that openly disregard the rules of international law, hollowing out the very principles established to protect peoples and states.
In conclusion, this type of intervention in states, in such a manner, threatens not only the sovereignty of a particular country but also heralds a gradual collapse of the foundations of the international system based on the legal equality of states. It also turns international law from a tool for achieving peace, security, and justice into a means of legitimizing hegemony—an outcome that calls for serious reconsideration of mechanisms for protecting international legitimacy and ensuring respect for it without selectivity or double standards.
About the Author
Khalid Cherkaoui Semmouni holds a PhD in Public Law, specializing in Political Science. He is Professor of Constitutional and International Law and serves as Director of the Rabat Center for Political and Strategic Studies (Morocco). He is a Research Associate at the African Institute for Strategic Reflection (Paris, France) and Visiting Professor at the Higher Institute of Information and Communication (ISIC) in Rabat. He has held senior institutional positions in the field of human rights and regularly contributes to national and international media as a political and legal analyst.
Keywords
International Law · State Sovereignty · U.S. Foreign Policy · Venezuela · United Nations Charter · Non-intervention Principle · International Legal Order
