USA: Act of aggression against Venezuela further weakens rules-based international order and leaves Venezuelans still waiting for justice
The 3 January US attack on Venezuela was an unlawful use of force under the UN Charter, further threatening the rules-based international order. Meanwhile, the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Maduro government against the Venezuelan people remain without justice or guarantees of non-repetition, warned Amnesty International today.
“The US military operation in Venezuela constitutes a clear violation of the UN Charter. It is an act of aggression that endangers civilians and tears apart the guardrails of international law. Not only was the Trump administration’s use of force illegal, but it could encourage unlawful actions by other states and herald similar future actions by the USA,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.
As President Trump himself has stated, control over resources and geopolitical power in the region have largely driven the 3 January attack. He has since openly claimed authority to direct policy in Venezuela, even as acting President Delcy Rodríguez maintains defiant rhetoric while effectively cooperating with the USA. Amid the uncertainty generated by the volatile internal situation and the persistence of the state’s repressive apparatus, the Venezuelan population faces increasing US interference, failure to deliver comprehensive and lasting human rights solutions, and threats of further harm to their rights and security.
Amnesty International unequivocally condemns both the unlawful use of force by the United States and the multiple crimes by the Venezuelan authorities against the people of Venezuela.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
“Impunity for the crimes against humanity committed by Venezuelan authorities under Maduro for more than a decade is so far continuing under Delcy Rodríguez’s acting government. Even as prisoners are being released, no meaningful steps toward justice, nor guarantees of non-repetition, have been taken. At the same time, threats to civic space continue, and human rights defenders and their organizations continue to face the risk of persecution and criminalization,” said Agnès Callamard.
“Let us be clear: Amnesty International unequivocally condemns both the unlawful use of force by the United States and the multiple crimes by the Venezuelan authorities against the people of Venezuela. Denouncing the United States’ illegal military action must in no way overshadow the urgent need for accountability and reparation for the Venezuelan government’s litany of grave human rights violations and crimes against humanity.
“Two wrongs don’t make a right. There must be full accountability and redress for the Trump administration’s illegal attack on Venezuela, and for the crimes under international law committed by the Venezuelan authorities.”
President Trump’s open-ended threats to escalate unilateral military action elsewhere, paired with rhetoric about “running” Venezuela and controlling its oil, accelerate the dismantling of the rules of international law designed to protect civilians and prevent conflict, threatening human rights across the world. Since attacking Venezuela, President Trump has threatened to use military force against Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Iran and Mexico. Meanwhile, China continues to engage in threatening actions against Taiwan and its neighbors, and Russia continues its aggression against Ukraine and has engaged in overflights into NATO airspace.
“Make no mistake, these are calculated efforts to normalize a ‘might-makes-right’ approach to foreign affairs and sideline the UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, human rights treaties, and other bedrocks of international order. Other states must push back against these reckless efforts to dismantle the global rules designed to maintain peace, protect civilians in conflict, and guarantee the human rights of all people everywhere.”
Why this was an unlawful use of force, and an act of aggression
International law could not be clearer: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; Article 2(3) requires peaceful settlement of disputes. The Friendly Relations Declaration (UNGA 2625) codifies the ban on armed intervention. And UNGA Resolution 3314 defines aggression, noting that a state’s first use of armed force in violation of the Charter is prima facie evidence of an act of aggression, including bombardment or attacks on another state’s armed forces. The 3 January operation involved precisely those modalities.
The US government started its military escalation with extrajudicial executions in international waters and carried out the capture of Nicolás Maduro under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking, only to reveal with no ambiguity its real motivation: the control of Venezuela’s natural resources. But beyond the ever-changing official justification given, the facts are unequivocal and constitute grave violations of international law. Even if the US government’s claims of countering drug trafficking were accepted, it would still be unlawful to exercise enforcement jurisdiction on the territory of another state without its consent, a violation of sovereignty long recognized in international law. Drug trafficking allegations are not an “armed attack” that can trigger self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter.
The Inter-American Juridical Committee has likewise affirmed that, for OAS member states, the only exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force are self-defense and UN Security Council authorization, limits whose purpose is precisely to safeguard peace and human rights in the region.
No label can convert a bombardment into ‘law enforcement.’ The facts, not political rhetoric, determine the applicable law.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
The US attack clearly meets three of the seven prohibited acts that Resolution 3314 defines as constituting acts of aggression: “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State”; “bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State”; and an “attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State”.
International human rights law applies at all times. The UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 36 makes clear that acts of aggression resulting in deprivation of life violate Article 6 of the ICCPR ipso facto, and that failure to resolve disputes by peaceful means may breach the duty to protect life.
“No label can convert a bombardment into ‘law enforcement.’ The facts, not political rhetoric, determine the applicable law. Without Security Council authorization or a genuine case of self-defense, the USA’s unilateral use of force against Venezuela was unlawful, and an act of aggression. The right to life is not suspended when a government chooses to ignore the UN Charter,” said Agnès Callamard.
Inside Venezuela: a machinery of repression that did not stop on 3 January
For years, Amnesty International and multiple international investigations have documented the systematic policy of repression, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, and other ill treatment, particularly targeting human rights defenders, political opponents, protesters, journalists, and real or perceived critics of the government.
In 2019, Amnesty International established the existence of a widespread and systematic attack by the Venezuelan authorities under Nicolás Maduro against the civilian population, finding that crimes against humanity had been committed since at least 2014. The organization has since published further evidence of persecution and enforced disappearances as well as other crimes against humanity, while calling for and backing investigations by the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela and the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as ongoing criminal investigations under the principle of universal jurisdiction in Argentina.
“Crimes against humanity do not end with Maduro’s removal. Venezuelan victims, survivors, and their families continue to carry physical and psychological scars. The fate and whereabouts of many people subjected to enforced disappearance remain unresolved. The state machinery responsible for those crimes is still firmly in place, now supported by the US authorities’ involvement,” said Agnès Callamard.
During the first days of Delcy Rodríguez’s interim government, security forces and intelligence agencies (the civilian Bolivarian Service of National Intelligence, SEBIN; and the military General Direction of Military Counterintelligence, DGCIM) and pro-government armed groups have continued to detain people, surveil communities, and intimidate those suspected of supporting the 3 January attack, including by establishing checkpoints and forcing individuals to unlock their phones for arbitrary checks. There were reports of arbitrary detentions – including 14 journalists while covering an official press conference who have since been released – threats, and reprisals, echoing the well-documented patterns of the past decade.
More recently, after the Rodríguez government announced mass releases on 8 January, hundreds of people who were unfairly imprisoned have been freed. On 31 January, acting president Delcy Rodríguez also announced an amnesty law, intended to benefit all those accused of crimes since 1999, and the closure of the major detention facility El Helicoide, which would supposedly be converted into a social centre.
The US administration’s actions currently make the prospect of any potential justice proceedings concerning Nicolás Maduro much more challenging and complex.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
While these announcements are welcome, the amnesty law on its own is far from sufficient if there are no guarantees of non-repetition, including the repeal of laws and the dismantling of state agencies that have enabled arbitrary detentions and other serious human rights violations. Amnesty International has witnessed before how authorities release detainees as a gesture of goodwill, only for new waves of detention to be carried out shortly afterwards. Additionally, it is unclear whether the amnesty law might extend to state agents, potentially turning it into a mechanism for impunity, an outcome that must not be allowed.
Similarly, the closure of El Helicoide is wholly inadequate to end the serious crimes committed there. Local NGOs have documented politically motivated arbitrary detentions in dozens of other facilities across the country, and there is evidence of clandestine detention centres operating outside any legal framework.
Finally, the restrictive laws that prevent civil society organizations from fully exercising their rights to defend human rights remain untouched. These legal obstacles continue to severely limit victims, their relatives, activists, and organizations from pursuing justice and accountability.
“Authorities in Venezuela must immediately release all arbitrarily detained individuals, with no exceptions, end enforced disappearances and torture immediately, and guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. Anything less perpetuates further cycles of violations, entrenches impunity and denies victims their right to truth, justice, and reparation,” said Agnès Callamard.
In 2020, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC stated that it believed there was a “reasonable basis to conclude” that crimes against humanity had been committed in Venezuela since at least April 2017, and in November 2021 the Prosecutor formally opened an investigation. Since then, Pre-Trial Chamber I and the ICC Appeals Chamber have authorized the continuation of the investigation despite Venezuela’s attempts to halt it, noting that domestic authorities have not demonstrated genuine proceedings regarding the same categories of perpetrators, namely senior officials and members of state security forces. Given this consistent pattern of findings, including the documented chain of command, the central role of the presidency in Venezuela’s security and intelligence apparatus, and the scale and systematic nature of the violations, Nicolás Maduro is among the individuals most likely to fall within the ICC’s investigative and prosecutorial scope should the evidence meet the Rome Statute thresholds for individual criminal responsibility.
“Venezuelan victims have a right to truth, justice, and reparation for crimes against humanity they have suffered. We call on the International Criminal Court to expedite its work, including issuing arrest warrants when the evidentiary threshold is met. Justice delayed is justice denied, especially for Venezuelans who have waited years to be heard. However, the US administration’s actions currently make the prospect of any potential justice proceedings concerning Nicolás Maduro much more challenging and complex,” said Agnès Callamard.
A dangerous precedent beyond Venezuela
Since taking this action, President Trump has effectively asserted that he does not consider himself bound by international law, and that the Western Hemisphere is a region the United States is entitled to control, even through armed force, as it sees fit; a position increasingly referred to as the so-called “Donroe Doctrine”. This is not the first unilateral use of force by the United States, but it may be the first time the USA has attempted to justify its actions in a way that is blatantly misaligned with the principles of international law. Instead, President Trump and his top senior aides appear intent on declaring themselves unconstrained by the international legal framework that the United States itself helped design after the Second World War.
Today’s silence will be tomorrow’s permission slip. States must draw a clear line, here and now.
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General
The 3 January strike also caps months of lethal US strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific – conduct that Amnesty International and many legal experts have denounced as constituting extrajudicial executions. At least one additional strike has taken place since the act of aggression. The buildup of US naval assets in the Caribbean and declared intent to use force against criminal groups further blurred the line between law enforcement and war, feeding fears of regional escalation.
What must happen now: our demands for protection and justice
All states should reassert the primacy of the UN Charter and the global consensus on the peremptory nature of the prohibition of the use of force in international relations. In multilateral fora and bilateral engagements, governments must reject the normalization of unilateral uses of force as a tool of policy, and center civilian protection and human rights.
“Today’s silence will be tomorrow’s permission slip. States must draw a clear line, here and now. The suffering of those harmed by unlawful force and the suffering of those brutalized by their own authorities are not competing tragedies. The only path that respects their dignity is one rooted in law: comply with international law, protect civilians, investigate violations, and guarantee justice,” said Agnès Callamard.
The United States must cease lethal strikes against alleged drug boats and any further use or threat of force against Venezuela. Where credible evidence shows civilian deaths or unlawful killings, it must investigate promptly, independently and impartially, and provide reparations. These steps are essential not only under international law, but also to restore minimal trust that civilians are not bargaining chips in a geopolitical gambit.
The Venezuelan authorities must end crimes against humanity: guarantee the right to life and release all those who are still arbitrarily detained; halt enforced disappearances, torture, and other ill treatment; dismantle pro-government armed groups, which are also responsible for serious human rights violations; and guarantee the rights to freedom of expression, association, political participation and peaceful assembly, including by repealing the laws that have been named as “anti-NGO legislation”. The authorities should dismantle the policy of repression as a whole and put guarantees of non-repetition in place, starting by strengthening the independence of the judiciary and other institutions within the state. Perpetrators of these crimes must be held accountable and victims’ rights to justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition must be fulfilled. The renewed context cannot serve as a pretext for entrenching the machinery of repression.