DISMANTLING THE RULES: HOW U.S. POWER UNDERMINES INTERNATIONAL LAW

INTRODUCTION

The January 2026 military incursion into Caracas, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, was not just a law enforcement action. It marked the violent start of the ‘Donroe Doctrine.’ This is a 21st-century “Trump Corollary” to the 1823 Donroe Doctrine. This change in U.S. foreign policy shows a shift from recognising neighbours as independent states to seeing them as areas to control or resources to take.

From the “judicial extraction” of Nicolás Maduro to the coercive economic pressure applied to the sovereign territory of Greenland, the administration’s actions reveal a businessman-like view of geopolitics where national boundaries are secondary to resource acquisition and “preeminence.” While the White House justifies these actions as necessary for national security and the war on “narco-terrorism,” a deeper legal analysis reveals a systematic dismantling of international law. By bypassing the UN Charter and utilising deceptive military tactics, the U.S. is not merely capturing a “fugitive”; it is setting a dangerous precedent that subordinates the principle of sovereignty to the whims of unilateral power.

THE ‘DONROE DOCTRINE’ AND THE ILLUSION OF NARCO-TERRORISM

Operation Absolute Resolve in Caracas and the continuous looming threat to Greenland aren’t isolated events; they are all interconnected, and they point towards the birth of the “Donroe Doctrine.” It describes a perceived desire by the second trump administration to assert American dominance in the western hemisphere.[1] The Donroe Doctrine is a revived version of the Donroe Doctrine, a U.S. foreign policy from 1823 that warned European powers against further colonisation or interference in the Americas, establishing the Western Hemisphere as a U.S. sphere of influence in exchange for American neutrality in European affairs.

This is evident not only in the coercive actions observed in Venezuela, i.e. Operation Absolute Resolve, but also in the administration’s renewed interest in Greenland. The proposal to acquire Greenland, framed as a strategic necessity for national security to counter Chinese and Russian influence, but are rather rooted in increased interest in Greenland’s natural resources, including rare earth minerals, uranium and iron. It could also have significant oil and gas reserves.[1] The same goes for Venezuela, which has the largest proven oil reserves, totalling 300 billion barrels.[2]

However, these actions are a blatant violation of international law and set a seriously dangerous precedent for the world order. This UN Charter article strictly prohibits the use of force against another state’s integrity. Article 2(4) of the UN charter mentions that “All Members shall 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”[3].

Moreover, neither does it find support under Article 51 of the UN charter, “Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”[4]Although the self-defence clause has been misused a lot under the contested categories of pre-emptive attack and anticipatory self-defence, the present actions of the US appear to have surpassed these debated categories and created their own grounds.[5] In addition to this, it violates international customary law, in accordance with which the sitting heads of state typically enjoy absolute immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts.[6]

Furthermore, it is to be noted that this fanatic nature of the US administration is not a new phenomenon; the same script has been used before. In 2003, false claims of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) led to the invasion of Iraq, which didn’t bring democracy, but instead birthed ISIS and a decade of chaos. By repeating this in Venezuela, the U.S. risks a “Bolivarian insurgency” If the U.S. thinks it can govern a country where the ‘Bolivarian’ identity is tied to anti-imperialism, they are inviting a guerrilla war that could last decades. (“Bolivarian insurgency” generally refers to the political movement and social revolution in Venezuela led by Hugo Chávez, inspired by Simón Bolívar, focusing on anti-imperialism.

Moreover, the U.S. described the operation as a “judicial extraction”; however, more than 150 aircraft – including bombers, fighter jets and reconnaissance planes – were ultimately deployed through the course of the night, according to US officials. Loud explosions were heard in Caracas at about 02:00 local time (06:00 GMT), and plumes of smoke were seen rising over the city.[7] The scale of the weapon and force used shows that such an action was disproportionate in nature, so as to capture two individuals. Along with that, the U.S. military operation in Venezuela killed 32 Cuban officers.[8] About this, it is to be noted that IHL requires that any military action be proportionate to the military advantage gained and only used when strictly necessary[9].

The trump administration seeks to justify Operation Absolute Resolve (the capture of Maduro) as a “war on narco-terrorism” to stop the flood of drugs into America. However, such claims are unfounded. In 2023, approximately 69% of all overdose deaths involved synthetic opioids, primarily illegally made fentanyl.[10] The drug’s precursor chemicals are primarily sourced from China, whereas Venezuela plays only a modest role in supplying cocaine to the United States. Moreover, since approximately 2019, Mexico has reportedly replaced the People’s Republic of China (PRC, or China) as the main source of U.S.-bound illicit fentanyl.[11]

THE “SHEEP’S CLOTHING” STRATEGY: PERFIDY AS A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF WAR

The Pentagon disguised a military aircraft as a civilian plane to attack an alleged drug smuggling boat last year, killing 11, the New York Times reported. The military utilised a “covert fleet” of aircraft, including modified Boeing 737s and Cessna turboprops, specifically painted to mimic civilian commercial liveries.[12] This alleged action of the U.S. has invited rare and severe legal accusations to the forefront: Perfidy. As noted by former Air Force Deputy Judge Advocate General Steven Lepper, “shielding your identity is an element of perfidy. Under Article 37 (c) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, perfidy is defined as acts that ‘invite the confidence of an adversary… with intent to betray that confidence by feigning civilian, non-combatant status.”[13] By feigning a non-combatant status, these aircraft tricked targets into failing to take evasive action, effectively using the safety of civilian aviation as a weapon. Moreover, such conduct using civilian disguises is a War Crime under the Rome Statute and Customary IHL (Rule 65).[14]

Furthermore, International law expert Nehal Bhuta warns that if military strikes are launched from planes with civilian markings, then every actual civilian airliner becomes a potential target for fearful adversaries. In the alleged boat strikes, it was reported that survivors of an initial blast waved at the incoming aircraft[15], believing it to be a civilian rescue plane, only to be killed in a follow-up strike. This specific betrayal of humanitarian hope is the legal definition of perfidious killing.

CONCLUSION

What emerges from Venezuela, Greenland, and the Pentagon’s alleged resort to perfidious tactics is not a collection of excesses, but a coherent worldview, one in which legality follows power, and sovereignty survives only at the discretion of Washington. The so-called “Donroe Doctrine” is not merely an aggressive foreign policy posture; it represents a systematic dilution of the core restraints that have governed interstate conduct since 1945. By normalising threats of force, stretching self-defence beyond recognition, disregarding head-of-state immunity, and allegedly exploiting civilian protections for military gain, the United States risks hollowing out the very legal order it once claimed to uphold.

History does not forgive such experimentations. The weakening of international law will not lead to security, but rather to instability and resulting compensation for the violators. If sovereignty is no longer inviolable for strategic means and the usage of civilian safeguards in the form of a weapon goes unpunished, then the distinction between legal and illegal usage of force will lose all relevance. The risk in the Donroe Doctrine is not merely in its effect on Venezuela and Greenland, but rather in the setting of a new global standard where the usage of power, unbound by law, is the determinant in all matters.

Author’s Name: Sakshi Sharma (Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi)

References:

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78vj5n7jg3o

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Venezuela

[3] https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2/english/rep_supp7_vol1_art2_4.pdf

[4] https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml

[5] Prabhash Ranjan, America’s Venezulean actions are most unlawful <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/americas-venezuelan-actions-are-most-unlawful/article70479109.ece

[6] https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2022/english/chp6.pdf

[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdred61epg4o

[8] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q4l3g183jo

[9] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14

[10]https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/es/about/informacion-sobre-la-prevencion-de-sobredosis.html