Venezuela’s Plea to the UN Security Council: A Legal and Geopolitical Analysis of US Strikes and Counterarguments
Abstract: This academic paper examines Venezuela’s request to the United Nations Security Council to declare U.S. strikes on vessels off its coast illegal. The paper analyzes the legal justifications presented by both Venezuela and the United States, focusing on international law principles such as sovereignty, self-defense, and the prohibition of the use of force. It further explores the geopolitical implications of such actions within the context of U.S.-Venezuelan relations and the role of the UN Security Council, particularly the impact of U.S. veto power. The paper argues that while Venezuela’s claims of sovereignty violations are significant, the U.S. invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, even if contested on evidentiary grounds, creates a complex legal and political stalemate.
- Introduction
In October 2025, the geopolitical tensions between Venezuela and the United States escalated with reports of U.S. military strikes targeting vessels off the Venezuelan coast, purportedly involved in drug trafficking. Venezuela, under President Nicolás Maduro, responded by formally petitioning the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to condemn these actions as illegal and to reaffirm its sovereignty. This act thrusts the international community into a quandary, demanding an examination of the legality of unilateral military action, the interpretation of international law, and the efficacy of multilateral institutions in resolving such disputes. This paper aims to dissect Venezuela’s plea, analyze the U.S. counterarguments, and assess the broader legal and geopolitical ramifications of this confrontation.
- Venezuela’s Allegations and Legal Basis
Venezuela’s primary argument, as articulated by its UN Ambassador Samuel Moncada, centers on the violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The letter to the UNSC accuses the U.S. of conducting “deadly U.S. strikes on vessels off its coast” and claims these are “civilian vessels transiting international waters,” resulting in the deaths of “at least 27 people.” Venezuela’s legal basis for this appeal rests on several foundational principles of international law:
Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: The Charter of the United Nations unequivocally upholds the sovereign equality of all its Members (Article 2(1)) and prohibits any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2(4)). Venezuela asserts that U.S. military actions, even if targeting vessels in international waters, have a direct impact on its security interests and potentially infringe upon its jurisdiction or exclusive economic zone. The claim of “civilian vessels” further strengthens the argument against the legitimacy of lethal force.
Prohibition of the Use of Force: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is a cornerstone of international law, prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Venezuela argues that the U.S. strikes constitute an illegal use of force, especially if they lack a clear and demonstrable link to an armed attack against the U.S. or its allies, or if the targets were indeed civilian.
Due Process and Evidence: Venezuela’s demand for an investigation implies a lack of transparency and due process in the U.S. actions. The absence of publicly provided evidence by the Trump administration regarding the vessels’ involvement in drug trafficking raises questions about the factual predicate for the strikes, further undermining their legality under international norms that often require proportionality and necessity.
Jurisdiction and International Waters: While the U.S. operation reportedly involved identifying drug-trafficking vessels, the legal justification for employing lethal force in international waters, particularly in a manner that results in casualties, is highly contentious. International law governing maritime activities, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), outlines rights and responsibilities concerning piracy, drug trafficking, and law enforcement, but the broad authorization of covert operations and deadly strikes without clear evidence and international consensus is problematic.
President Maduro’s public statement, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of a U.S. administration publicly authorizing the CIA to “kill, overthrow, and destroy countries,” underscores Venezuela’s narrative of U.S. aggression and destabilization efforts.
- The United States’ Justification and Legal Counterargument
The Trump administration, through U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz, defended its actions by invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter. This article states:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter as regards any action which the Security Council deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
The U.S. justification suggests that the strikes were undertaken as a measure of self-defense against actions it perceives as posing a threat to U.S. sovereignty and its citizens. Ambassador Waltz stated that President Trump would utilize intelligence, the defense department, and diplomacy “to defend U.S. sovereignty against actions that are actively killing Americans.” This implies an argument that drug trafficking, particularly if linked to organized crime or state-sponsored activities that pose a direct threat, can constitute an “armed attack” or at the very least, necessitate a defensive response under Article 51.
Key elements of the U.S. counterargument include:
Self-Defense Under Article 51: The U.S. interpretation posits that the activities of the targeted vessels, if proven to be linked to drug trafficking networks that endanger U.S. citizens or national security, fall within the purview of self-defense. This is a broad interpretation of “armed attack,” often debated in international legal discourse.
Necessity and Proportionality (Implicit): While not explicitly detailed in the provided text, any invocation of self-defense under Article 51 implicitly requires that the measures taken be necessary and proportionate to the threat. The U.S. would argue that the strikes were necessary to disrupt alleged drug-trafficking operations and proportionate to the threat posed. However, Venezuela’s claim of 27 civilian deaths and the assertion of targeting civilian vessels directly challenges the proportionality and necessity of the U.S. actions.
Intelligence and Law Enforcement Operations: The U.S. also alluded to the use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for covert operations. This suggests a framing of the actions as part of broader intelligence and law enforcement efforts to combat transnational criminal organizations, particularly drug cartels, which often operate across borders and pose significant security challenges.
Domestic Legal Authority: The U.S. President’s authority to authorize such operations is derived from domestic legal frameworks pertaining to national security and foreign intelligence. However, the legality under international law hinges on the justification provided within the UN framework.
- The Role of the UN Security Council and the Veto Power
Venezuela’s appeal to the UNSC highlights the council’s intended role as the primary organ for maintaining international peace and security. However, the dynamics of the UNSC, particularly the veto power held by its five permanent members (P5), significantly influence its ability to act decisively.
Inability to Act Beyond Meetings: The article explicitly states that “the Security Council will be unable to take any action beyond holding meetings on the situation because the United States holds veto power.” This is a critical procedural barrier. Any substantive resolution condemning the U.S. actions or demanding an investigation would require the affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of all P5 members. The U.S., as a P5 member, can unilaterally block any such resolution with its veto.
Geopolitical Stalemate: The UNSC meeting requested by Venezuela, Russia, and China indicates a division among member states. While Venezuela, Russia, and China are likely to support Venezuela’s position, Western powers, particularly the U.S. and its allies, would likely support the U.S. justification. This alignment creates a deadlock, preventing the UNSC from fulfilling its mandate in this instance.
Legitimacy vs. Efficacy: Even if the UNSC cannot pass a binding resolution, Venezuela’s appeal serves to bring the issue to international attention, exert diplomatic pressure, and potentially rally support from other member states. It allows Venezuela to frame the narrative on the global stage and challenge the U.S. actions on legal and moral grounds, even if diplomatic efficacy is limited by the U.S. veto.
Precedent and Norm Development: The manner in which the UNSC handles such disputes, even without substantive action, can contribute to the development of international norms and interpretations of the UN Charter. The debate surrounding the legality of the strikes, the definition of self-defense, and the transparency required for military actions will continue to be scrutinized.
- Analysis and Discussion
The situation presents a classic clash between a state asserting its sovereignty and the right to be free from external military intervention and a powerful nation invoking self-defense in what it deems a critical national security interest.
The Evidentiary Gap: The core of Venezuela’s legal challenge lies in the U.S.’s failure to provide concrete evidence to substantiate its claims about the targeted vessels. International law, particularly in matters of armed conflict and the use of force, generally requires a high burden of proof to justify such actions. If the vessels were indeed civilian and their activities did not constitute an direct armed attack on the U.S., Venezuela’s claims of illegality gain significant traction.
The Broad Interpretation of Article 51: The U.S. invocation of Article 51 to justify strikes against alleged drug-trafficking vessels is a contentious interpretation of the self-defense provision. While the threat posed by transnational criminal organizations is real and can impact national security, equating their activities with an “armed attack” is a significant expansion of the traditional understanding of the provision, which is primarily designed to address state-sponsored aggression.
The Deterrent Effect of the Veto: The U.S. veto power effectively shields its actions from any direct UNSC censure or binding action. This underscores a recurring critique of the UNSC, where the political interests of the P5 often supersede the principle of collective security. This dynamic can lead to impunity for powerful states and a sense of frustration for smaller nations seeking redress.
Covert Operations and International Law: The authorization of covert operations by the CIA to “kill, overthrow, and destroy countries,” as alleged by Maduro, raises profound questions about the legality and ethical implications of clandestine foreign interventions. While intelligence agencies often operate in the shadows, publicly acknowledging authorization for such broad and destructive actions, even if denied by U.S. officials, strains the principles of international law and peaceful coexistence.
- Conclusion
Venezuela’s plea to the UN Security Council to declare U.S. strikes illegal highlights the ongoing challenges in upholding international law in the face of powerful states’ perceived national security interests and geopolitical maneuvering. While Venezuela’s arguments concerning sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the use of force are legally sound, the U.S. reliance on a broad interpretation of Article 51, coupled with its veto power within the UNSC, creates a situation where legal accountability through multilateral channels is severely hampered.
The lack of transparency and evidence regarding the U.S. strikes leaves a significant evidentiary gap that undermines the legitimacy of its actions. The situation underscores the limitations of the UN Security Council as a guarantor of international peace and security when one of its permanent members is implicated. Ultimately, while Venezuela may not achieve a definitive UNSC resolution, its appeal serves to internationalize the dispute, highlight the contentious legal and ethical dimensions of U.S. foreign policy, and contribute to the broader discourse on the interpretation and application of international law in the 21st century. The long-term implications will depend on future diplomatic efforts, the actions of other international actors, and the potential for a shift in the U.S. administration’s approach or a broader international consensus on the limits of unilateral military action.
References:
Charter of the United Nations.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Reuters reporting (as cited in the provided text).
Scholarly articles and legal analyses on international law, the use of force, and UN Security Council dynamics.
Statements from Venezuelan and U.S. officials at the UN and in public forums.