INTRODUCTION
The recent developments surrounding the United States’ involvement in Venezuela in early 2026 have reignited long-standing debates on interventionism, state sovereignty, and the relevance of historical foreign policy doctrines in contemporary international law. Reports of U.S. military action and the detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro drew sharp reactions from the international community, particularly regarding their legality under the United Nations Charter.[1] These developments have once again brought the Monroe Doctrine into the spotlight, a doctrine historically associated with U.S. influence over Latin America.
Although the Monroe Doctrine was originally framed as a protective measure against European colonial expansion, its modern interpretation has often been criticised as a tool for asserting U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.[2] In the present geopolitical context, where international law emphasises sovereign equality and non-intervention, the continued reliance on such doctrines raises serious legal and normative concerns. This blog critically examines the evolution of the Monroe Doctrine, the nature of U.S. hegemony, and whether modern interventionism can be reconciled with contemporary international legal norms.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in 1823 by U.S. President James Monroe in his Seventh Annual Message to Congress.[3] It declared that the American continents were no longer open to European colonisation and warned European powers against interfering in the affairs of newly independent Latin American states. In return, the United States committed to non-intervention in European political affairs.
At its inception, the doctrine functioned primarily as a political warning rather than a binding legal rule. However, its scope expanded significantly in the early 20th century with the introduction of the Roosevelt Corollary, which asserted the right of the United States to intervene in Latin American countries to maintain stability and order.[4] This marked a decisive shift from defensive non-colonisation to active intervention, effectively transforming the doctrine into a justification for U.S. involvement in the domestic affairs of neighbouring states.
Throughout the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine continued to influence U.S. foreign policy, particularly in preventing the spread of communism in the Western Hemisphere. While the doctrine itself lacked formal legal status, it became deeply embedded in U.S. strategic thinking, reinforcing the perception of Latin America as a sphere of exclusive influence.
UNDERSTANDING U.S. HEGEMONY IN LATIN AMERICA
Hegemony, in international relations, refers to the predominance of one state over others through political, economic, and military means.[5] In Latin America, U.S. hegemony has historically manifested through economic leverage, diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and, at times, direct military intervention. This pattern has often been justified on grounds of regional stability, security, or ideological alignment.
The Venezuelan situation exemplifies how hegemonic influence operates in practice. The United States has long opposed the Venezuelan government’s political orientation and has imposed extensive economic sanctions aimed at influencing internal political outcomes. Critics argue that such measures, when combined with military action, blur the line between lawful foreign policy and unlawful intervention. From a legal perspective, hegemony itself is not prohibited. However, when hegemonic power is exercised in ways that violate core principles of international law, such as sovereignty and non-intervention, it becomes legally and morally contentious.
THE VENEZUELAN CRISIS AND CONTEMPORARY INTERVENTIONISM
The 2026 intervention in Venezuela has been justified by U.S. authorities on grounds ranging from combating organised crime to restoring democratic governance.[6] However, international law does not recognise regime change or internal political reform as lawful justifications for the use of force. Such actions are governed strictly by the framework of the UN Charter.
The absence of explicit authorisation from the United Nations Security Council has intensified scrutiny of the legality of U.S. actions. Moreover, the characterisation of the intervention as a law-enforcement or humanitarian measure has failed to convince many international law scholars, who view it as a continuation of unilateral interventionism. This situation highlights the tension between political doctrines rooted in historical practice and the legal obligations imposed by the post-1945 international legal order.
INTERNATIONAL LAW FRAMEWORK: USE OF FORCE AND NON-INTERVENTION
The cornerstone of modern international law governing state conduct is Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.[7] This prohibition is widely regarded as a norm of customary international law.
The only recognised exceptions to this rule are self-defence under Article 51 and actions authorised by the UN Security Council. In the case of Venezuela, neither condition appears to have been satisfied. Venezuela did not carry out an armed attack against the United States, nor was there Security Council approval for military action.
The International Court of Justice, in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), reaffirmed the principle that even indirect forms of intervention violate international law.[8] The Court emphasised that powerful states cannot justify intervention based on ideological or political disagreements. Applying this precedent to the Venezuelan situation strengthens the argument that U.S. actions fall outside the bounds of lawful conduct under international law.
THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE
From a strictly legal standpoint, the Monroe Doctrine does not constitute a source of international law. Under Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, recognised sources include treaties, customary international law, general principles of law, and judicial decisions.[9] A unilateral political doctrine does not meet these criteria.
Therefore, even if the Monroe Doctrine continues to influence U.S. foreign policy, it cannot override obligations arising from the UN Charter. Reliance on such a doctrine risks undermining the universality of international law by privileging power over legality.
Legal scholars argue that permitting historical doctrines to justify intervention would erode the prohibition on the use of force and encourage similar actions by other powerful states, thereby destabilising the international system.[10]
HEGEMONY VERSUS THE RULE-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER
The Venezuelan crisis illustrates a broader challenge facing international law: the tension between hegemonic power and the rule-based international order. While international law aspires to equality among states, geopolitical realities often reflect asymmetries of power. If powerful states act unilaterally under the guise of historical entitlement or regional dominance, the credibility of international law suffers. Smaller states may perceive the legal system as selective, weakening compliance and respect for legal norms. The persistence of such practices raises the question of whether international law can effectively constrain hegemonic behaviour or whether it is increasingly shaped by it.
CONCLUSION
The Monroe Doctrine, though historically significant, cannot serve as a lawful justification for modern interventionism under contemporary international law. The 2026 U.S. intervention in Venezuela underscores the enduring tension between hegemonic influence and legal restraint. While political doctrines may guide national policy, they cannot supersede the binding norms of the UN Charter. The Venezuelan case serves as a reminder that the legitimacy of the international legal order depends on consistent adherence to its foundational principles—sovereignty, non-intervention, and prohibition of the use of force. Reaffirming these principles is essential to preventing the normalisation of unilateral intervention and preserving the rule-based international system.
Author’s Name: Prachi Shrivastava (Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal)
References:
[1] Reuters, Trump Cancels Second Wave of Attacks on Venezuela After “Cooperation” (Jan. 9, 2026)
[2] PBS NewsHour, How the Monroe Doctrine Factors into the U.S. Action Against Venezuela (2026)
[3] James Monroe, Seventh Annual Message to Congress (Dec. 2, 1823).
[4] Dexter Perkins, The Monroe Doctrine 1823–1826 (Harvard University Press, 1933)
[5] Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2005)
[6] Al Jazeera, Trump Just Sent a Very Dangerous Message to Latin America (Jan. 4, 2026)
[7] United Nations Charter, art. 2(4)
[8] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), ICJ Reports 1986
[9] Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 38.
[10] Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law (9th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2021)
