The intervention by the United States in Venezuela violates the core of the United Nations’ Charter on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention in the sovereign affairs of states.
There was no Security Council authorisation for the air strikes on Saturday and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, no claim of self-defence and no recognised exception under international law.
Yet once such an unlawful act becomes a fait accompli – once power has already displaced authority – the international community faces a grim dilemma. A Japan-style reconstruction, carefully constrained and constitution-oriented, emerges not as a justification for the intervention but as the only alternative.
In 1945, the US made a decision that reshaped the post-war world. Instead of permanently subjugating a defeated Japan after World War II, it pursued reconstruction – demilitarising the state, redesigning institutions and rebuilding the economy.
That choice transformed a militaristic empire into a stable democracy and anchored a rules-based order across Asia. Invoking that precedent today, however, demands caution. Japan’s reconstruction followed a declared war and unconditional surrender. Venezuela’s predicament follows none of these. The analogy is therefore limited and must not be used to sanitise illegality.
The illegality of intervention
The United Nations charter rests on a foundational bargain: peace is preserved...
