A Blow to International Law – Sharp Criticism from the United Nations Toward America

The sharpest criticism did not come from Caracas, nor from the ranks of Washington’s political opponents, but from Geneva. The United Nations human rights office has unequivocally condemned the military seizure carried out by the United States in Venezuela and warned of its global consequences. The operation, according to the UN’s assessment, did not strengthen the international order but weakened it - and in doing so made all states less safe. Speaking to reporters, Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, said the intervention by the Trump administration could be justified neither morally nor legally. Pointing to Venezuela’s catastrophic human rights situation, she said, does not serve as a justification for the violent seizure of President Nicolás Maduro. On the contrary, the act damages the foundations of international security that were created precisely to restrain power politics and prevent escalation.

The message from Geneva is clear and deliberately sober. Anyone who claims to protect human rights cannot enforce them by means that themselves violate international law. Accountability for serious human rights violations, Shamdasani said, cannot be achieved through unilateral military interventions. This applies regardless of how grave the allegations against a government may be. In doing so, the UN human rights office directly contradicts Washington’s argument that the seizure was a necessary measure against a particularly repressive regime. The UN shifts the focus away from the figure of Maduro and toward the precedent being set: when powerful states begin to enforce political and criminal claims through military force, the entire system of international rules begins to slide.

Between the lines lies a warning that extends far beyond Venezuela. The international order is based on the principle that states are not both judge and executioner at the same time. Once this principle is abandoned, international law loses its protective function - for small states as well as large ones. It is precisely here that the UN human rights office sees the real danger of the US operation: not in the individual case, but in its signal effect. What comes from Geneva, therefore, is not a tactical objection but a fundamental one. Those who replace law with power undermine the security of all. And those who truly seek to protect human rights must not misuse them as a justification for unilateral military actions.