Sovereignty Maimed

“When states feel free to

use force unilaterally, the

rule of law itself is at risk.”

— Kofi Annan

The wee hours of January 3, 2026 will be remembered not for justice, but for the unravelling of the global legal order. In what was described by Washington as a ‘law-enforcement operation’, US forces executed a military strike in Caracas, detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, and flew them to the United States to face federal charges, including narco-terrorism. Soon after, not surprising to an awakening world, the US announced that it would oversee Venezuela’s oil resources and political transition, a move akin to a de facto occupation of sovereign territory.

Within hours, global attention gravitated not to the enormity of the action itself, but to a question that is increasingly becoming unavoidable. Where was the United Nations? What, if anything, remains of its role as guardian of the global order it was designed to uphold?

Charter Ignored

The United Nations Charter is explicit: Member states “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force” against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. Despite the grand verbiage, the US operation stands in contradiction to that framework: it was unilateral, militarised and executed without a UN mandate.

In response, the United Nations did what it so often does; it issued expressions of concern. Secretary-General António Guterres voiced alarm over the example being set, warning that the use of force without adherence to international law “constitutes a dangerous precedent”. To give the UN its due, Guterres also called for restraint and peaceful, diplomatic engagement among the parties concerned. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights echoed this sentiment, saying the operation “undermined a fundamental principle of international law, and (members) must not threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state”.

For all the concern, words were where the engagement and intervention of the United Nations ended. There was no Security Council resolution condemning the action, no coordinated efforts at peacekeeping, no sanctions on the United States for its breach of the UN Charter. Just some cautionary statements and a divided council, unable or unwilling to translate principle into action.

Paralysed Council

This is not the first time that the UN has been stretched to breaking point by the actions of powerful states. In 2003, the US-led invasion of Iraq proceeded despite widespread international opposition and without explicit Security Council approval, leaving deep scars on any remaining faith in collective security. In 2011, a UN-sanctioned intervention in Libya, justified as protection of civilians, morphed into regime change that plunged the country into years of chaos, again without any meaningful follow-up action by the organisation to enforce stability.

More recently, Gaza stands as a modern failure of the UN. Even as the General Assembly demanded a ceasefire and the Secretary-General highlighted civilian suffering, the Security Council remained paralysed by vetoes, allowing the mayhem to continue. As in Iraq and Libya, the UN could document the destruction in grim detail, but proved toothless to stop it. This only laid bare a global order where law bows before power. The lessons of these incursions should have reshaped global norms. Instead, they have only taught powerful states that multilateral institutions can be sidestepped with impunity.

The Security Council’s own mechanics are part of the problem. Its five permanent members, including the US, possess veto power that ensures no binding measures can be taken against them. When the actor accused of violating the Charter sits at the table with veto powers, accountability becomes impossible. A joke. A mockery of any claims of law, or monitoring and enforcement thereof.

Toothless Global Outcry

World leaders reacted swiftly to the Venezuela operation. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva decried the action as crossing an “unacceptable line” that violated law and sovereignty. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum condemned the use of force and invoked UN Charter principles. Many African nations called the actions a “clear violation of the UN Charter”. Beyond these statements, any international pressure on the US was conspicuously absent. European nations walked a careful line, threading diplomatic language that stresses the importance of global law without confronting the US. Russia and China issued strong condemnations, but their capacity to effect change through the UN is hamstrung by their own geopolitical constraints and the US veto.

Even in the Global South, responses have been muted. India’s statements expressed “deep concern” and a desire for peaceful resolution and dialogue, yet avoided naming Washington or condemning the intervention, opting instead for general calls to uphold international law. Indian voices critical of this reticence, such as that of MP Shashi Tharoor, highlight how US actions undermine core UN principles of sovereignty and non-use of force.

Sovereignty in Shambles

The UN’s limited response is not just symbolic, it undercuts confidence in the rules that guide global dialogue. For small and medium powers, the Charter was meant to be more than aspirational text. It was to be an enforceable social contract that protected the world against the whims of the powerful. Now, even that contract appears fragile and selectively applied.

Consider Venezuela’s plight. Its government — whatever be the view on its legitimacy or validity — argued before the United Nations that sanctions and coercive measures had devastated its economy and exacerbating humanitarian suffering. The appeals drew scant action. Now its leader Maduro has been forcibly removed by a foreign power. Sure, Venezuela’s formal complaint to the Security Council sparked debate but there was little or no authority to restrain the aggressor. This raises questions. If powerful states can override sovereignty for “law enforcement”, what prevents other nations from doing so? The UN Charter’s standpoint on force is foundational and seems to apply unevenly, enforced more through verbal invocation than action.

The handling of the Venezuela crisis reflects a broader crisis. The UN was conceived in 1945 to prevent just this kind of unilateral use of force. Its members pledged to uphold sovereignty, territorial integrity and peaceful dispute resolution. Over the years, the pattern of non-intervention during crises has eroded trust. From Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s to Iraq, Libya and Venezuela, the world has seen moments where the UN was present but powerless, or present but paralysed by power politics.

New Multilateralism

For India and middle powers committed to rule-based order, the fallout may be grave. A UN that cannot uphold its Charter when powerful states breach it is not merely weak, it risks irrelevance. The global community must confront not just the specific crisis in Venezuela, but the systemic dysfunction that allowed it to unfold without check. Reform proposals long discussed should be revived, such as limiting veto use in cases of humanitarian or sovereignty violations, expanding Security Council membership to be more globally representative and strengthening the General Assembly’s authority.

India, as a major voice for sovereignty and international law, has a moral and diplomatic role to play in this effort. Also, the world must revisit mechanisms for genuine action that do not depend on the largesse of the powerful. Regional organisations, coalitions of willing states and enhanced roles for global courts could provide avenues for accountability when traditional channels falter.

Soliloquy: The US action in Venezuela and the UN’s subdued response mark a watershed moment in the world. The global community stands at a crossroads, with the choices being to accept a world where power overrides law, or reaffirm the principles that have held tenuously for decades. For India and many others, the choice is clear. They can push for revitalised multilateralism that defends sovereignty and holds all states, great or small, to the same standards of law and conduct. Failure to do so will not only weaken the UN further, but embolden future transgressions, undermining peace and security for all. The world is watching. The United Nations must act. Or accept its own decline.

The writer can be reached on narayanrajeev2006@gmail.com. Views expressed are personal. The writer is a veteran journalist and communications specialist