Statement of International Law Scholars on the United States Military Aggression against Venezuela

The following text is published in the category of “Open Letters and Statements“.

SUMMARY – The unilateral action of the United States against Venezuela qualifies as a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of fundamental principles and rules of international law – The prohibition of aggression is a peremptory norm in international law – Breaches of such norms give rise to obligations on all States not to recognize as lawful a situation created by such
breach, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining such a situation – Under international law, heads of States enjoy inviolability and full immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts.

The large-scale military operation launched on 3 January 2026 by the United States of America against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, a sovereign State and a member of the United Nations, constitutes a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Article 2(4) which imposes a binding obligation on all Member States to refrain in their international relations from “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.

This prohibition of the use of force as a means of settling international disputes is part of customary international law and applies independently of treaty obligations, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, at paras. 188 190). This prohibition has also been recognized as the peremptory norm (jus cogens) of “prohibition of aggression”, as was recalled by the UN International Law Commission in its 2022 Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens) (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Seventy-third session (2022), UN Doc A/77/10 (2022), see esp. Conclusion 23, Annex).

More specifically, the unlawful use of force by the United States regime constitutes an egregious crime of aggression within the meaning of Article 3 of the Annex of the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) on “Definition of Aggression”. Article 5(1) of the same Resolution clearly stipulates that “no consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression”.

It is widely accepted that serious breaches of such peremptory norms give rise to obligations on
all States not to recognize as lawful a situation created by such breach nor render aid or
assistance in maintaining such a situation (see e.g. Report of the International Law Commission
on the work of its Seventy-third session (2022), UN Doc A/77/10 (2022), Conclusion 19).

As articulated by the UN International Law Commission in its Draft Articles on State Responsibility, all States are obligated to cooperate in bringing to an end a serious breach by any State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law (Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, GA Res 56/83, UN Doc A/RES/56/83 (28 January 2002, adopted 12 December 2001), art. 40(1)). Also, States shall not to recognize as lawful any situation created by the use of force (Ibid., art. 41(2)). The duty of non-recognition was affirmed by the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall, where the Court held that – as a corollary to the prohibition of the use of force – any measures resulting from the threat or use of force are illegal and must not be recognized as lawful by other States (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136, 171 [87], 196 [146]; see also Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, paras. 179, 180).

The obligation incumbent on all States not to recognize as lawful a situation created by a breach of peremptory norms, including the prohibition of aggression, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining such a situation, has also been reaffirmed by the UN International Law Commission in its 2022 Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens) (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Seventy-third session (2022), UN Doc A/77/10 (2022), see esp. Conclusion 19 and Conclusion 23, Annex).

In this context, third States and international organisations shall be expected to publicly condemn
in the strongest terms the aggression perpetrated by the United States regime against Venezuela,
and to act accordingly in taking all relevant practical measures and actively cooperate in enforcing
a policy of non-recognition of these unlawful actions. It goes without saying that any form of endorsement or recognition of the unlawful military aggression committed by the United States
would entail the international responsibility of the government(s) or international organization(s)
concerned.

In addition, the abduction of the President of Venezuela qualifies as a violation of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents of 1973 (annexed to General Assembly resolution 3166 (XVIII) of 14 December 1973), which was ratified by the United States on 26 October 1976. Under customary international law, a serving Head of State enjoys inviolability and full immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts (see e.g. ICJ, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) [2002] ICJ Rep 3).

The US attack on Venezuela also qualifies as a crime of aggression under the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) of 1998, Article 5(d). For the record, Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute defines aggression as “the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a
position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations”.

In light of the above-mentioned relevant fundamental rules and principles of international law, and given the “dangerous precedent” (UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Statement of 3 January 2026) set by the US aggression and kidnapping, the undersigned international legal scholars and experts call States, international organisations and the international community at large:

• to express the utmost condemnation of the United States unilateral actions against
  Venezuela, and
• to apply effective measures aiming at the collective non-recognition of these
  unlawful actions.

As stated by the President of the UN General Assembly on 5 January 2026, “a peaceful, safe and just world for everyone is only possible if the rule of law prevails instead of might makes right”.

Signatories (as of 20 January 2026)

Mohsen ABDOLLAHI, Associate Professor of International Law, Shahid Behesti University of
Tehran, Iran

Denis ALLAND, Professor Emeritus, Université Paris Panthéon Assas, France

Pouria ASKARY, Associate Professor of International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University of Tehran,
Iran

Valérie BORÉ EVENO, Associate Professor of International Law, Nantes Université, France

Olivier CORTEN, Professor of international law, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Pierre-Emmanuel DUPONT, Senior Lecturer in international law, Catholic University of Vendée,
France

Richard FALK, Emeritus Professor of International Law and Practice, Princeton University, United
States

Javad KASHANI, Associate professor, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Yoshiko KURITA, Department of History, Chiba University, Japan

Rafaëlle MAISON, Professor of international law, Université Paris Saclay, France

Seyed Hossein SADAT MEIDANI, Assistant Professor of International Law, School of International
Relations (SIR), Tehran, Iran

Mohsen MOHEBBI, Professor of International Law and Arbitration, Islamic Azad University,
Science and Research Branch, Iran

Mario PROST, Professor of international law, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Cedric RYNGAERT, Professor of Public International Law, Utrecht University, Netherlands

Ben SAUL, Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney, Australia, UN Special
Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while
Countering Terrorism

Katariina SIMONEN, Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki, Finland, and Pugwash
Council/Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs

Alfred M. de ZAYAS, Professor, Geneva School of Diplomacy, Switzerland