The UN Human Rights chief reiterated deep concerns that the military operation undermined fundamental protections for sovereign countries.
The military operation in Venezuela, involving the detention of President Nicolás Maduro, has prompted an urgent debate at the United Nations (UN) regarding the legitimacy of the U.S. military action. As member states grapple with this crisis, questions about sovereignty, the use of force, and the efficacy of the UN system have come to the forefront of global discourse.
The Venezuela Crisis: What Happened?
In the early hours of January 3, 2026, US armed forces launched what the Trump administration termed a "surgical law enforcement operation" against Venezuela. The operation involved airstrikes across Caracas and surrounding areas, targeting Venezuelan military infrastructure and facilitating the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The US government justified this action by presenting indictments charging Maduro with narco-terrorism conspiracy.
The Legal Battle: Two Opposing Frameworks
The UN debate on US military action in Venezuela centers on a clash between domestic law enforcement and international legal principles. The United States frames its intervention through the lens of criminal justice, arguing that Maduro is not a legitimate head of state but is leading a narco-terrorist organization. By invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right to self-defense, the US claims that drug trafficking constitutes an ongoing "armed attack" justifying military intervention.
Under the framework established by the UN Charter, the use of force is considered lawful only when authorised by a Security Council resolution under Article 42, or when a state is acting in self-defence. However, this interpretation has been widely contested by legal scholars and much of the international community. Article 2 of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Additionally, international law understands an “armed attack” as a kinetic military assault by one state against another, rather than activities such as the flow of illicit narcotics. Reflecting this position, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that accountability for human rights violations cannot be pursued through unilateral military intervention that contravenes international law.
Understanding the UN System: UN Security Council
The emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on January 5, 2026, highlighted the institution's structural limitations. The UN Security Council holds primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security under the UN Charter.
Its functions include investigating disputes that might lead to international friction, recommending methods of settlement, determining threats to peace, calling on members to apply sanctions, and taking military action against aggressors. The council consists of 15 members
- 5 permanent members (P5)- China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US who have the veto power.
- 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.
Resolutions require nine affirmative votes and no veto from any permanent member.
However, the Security Council's effectiveness is often constrained when permanent members are directly involved in conflicts. The veto power restricts the Council's ability to act decisively. Historical examples include the 1989 Panama invasion, when a draft resolution was vetoed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, demonstrating how the veto system can prevent collective action.
Beyond the Security Council: UN System's Response
With the Security Council deadlocked, attention has shifted to the UN General Assembly, which can act under the "Uniting for Peace" mechanism when the Council fails to maintain international peace.
Although General Assembly resolutions are non-binding, substantial majorities carry significant political symbolism that may complicate diplomatic recognition and encourage review of international arrangements. For many Global South countries with experiences of external intervention, such situations underscore broader concerns about sovereignty protection.
The UN humanitarian agencies face their own challenges. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that eight million Venezuelans, or one in four people, need humanitarian assistance. The US rejection of the "occupation" label creates a legal gray zone for UN aid workers and restricts their access based on cooperation with US military authorities.
The veto power has been criticized as unjust and counterproductive, with critics citing it as a cause of UN ineffectiveness in preventing genocide, violence, and human rights violations. A major step to counter this has been the Veto Initiative resolution of the UN General Assembly mechanism that calls on permanent members of the Security Council to explain their use of the veto, aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability. Since its adoption in 2022, 17 vetoes have triggered 17 General Assembly meetings. While this has increased scrutiny, many voice frustration at the limited tangible impact.
Reform proposals include the France-Mexico 2015 Joint Declaration, now supported by 107 countries, urging permanent members to voluntarily refrain from using vetoes in mass atrocity situations. The ACT (Accountability, Coherence and Transparency) Code of Conduct encourages timely Council action to prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Other proposals include limiting veto use to vital national security issues, requiring multiple states' agreement before exercising the veto, or abolishing it entirely.
However, formal amendment of the UN Charter has proven nearly impossible, requiring unanimous P5 consent. The same countries whose veto power practically paralyzes the Council can prevent amendments needed to address that paralysis.
Conclusion
Contemporary challenges to international peace and security expose fundamental flaws in the 1945 collective security architecture, especially the veto system that grants permanent members immunity from accountability while undermining the Council's core mission of international security and peace. The UN system's inability to prevent or respond effectively to major conflicts raises questions about the viability of current institutional arrangements.
Whether these recurring crises accelerate UN reform or hasten its decline depends on the international community's willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about power, accountability, and the architecture of global peace.
Master Digital Age Governance & Technology Trends with VisionIAS Comprehensive Current Affairs →
UN Debate on US Military Action in Venezuela FAQs
1. When did the US military conduct an operation in Venezuela?
Ans. January 3, 2026.
2. Why did the US conduct military operations in Venezuela?
Ans. To detain President Maduro on narco-terrorism charges.
3. What is the France-Mexico initiative on UN veto reform?
Ans. Voluntary veto restraint in mass atrocity situations.
4. How many UN Security Council members have veto power?
Ans. Five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US).
5.. What mechanism allows the UN General Assembly to act when the Security Council fails?
Ans. Uniting for Peace resolution.