China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, Sun Lei, addresses a UN Security Council meeting on Venezuela on January 5, 2026 in New York City. (Photo by Wang Fan/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)
Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro “seriously violates Venezuela’s national sovereignty and destabilizes international relations.”
A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday demanded the immediate release of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from US custody and condemned the Trump administration’s trampling of international law.
“The US disregards President Maduro’s status as head of state, blatantly prosecutes him, and puts him on a so-called ‘trial’ in a domestic court,” Lin Jian wrote in a social media post. “This seriously violates Venezuela’s national sovereignty and destabilizes international relations.”
“No country should put its domestic rules above international law,” Lin added. “China calls on the US to release President Maduro and his wife at once and ensure their personal safety.”
The U.S. disregards President Maduro’s status as head of state, blatantly prosecutes him and puts him on a so-called “trial” in a domestic court. This seriously violates Venezuela’s national sovereignty and destabilizes international relations.
The Chinese official’s remarks came a day after Maduro said Monday during his first appearance before a federal court in New York City that he is “still president” of Venezuela—a sentiment echoed by the country’s interim leader—and considers himself a “prisoner of war.” Maduro pleaded not guilty to narcoterrorism conspiracy and other charges pursued by the Trump Justice Department.
During a press conference on Monday, Lin called the US abduction of Maduro a “clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter,” expressing a view widely held by legal experts.
“China calls on the US to ensure the personal safety of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, release them at once, stop toppling the government of Venezuela, and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation,” said Lin.
Under international law, sitting heads of state are immune from prosecution in other countries’ courts. The Trump administration argues Maduro’s leadership was illegitimate. But President Donald Trump, in his social media post announcing the weekend attack on Venezuela, described Maduro as president of the South American country.
“If the Justice Department plans to argue that Nicolás Maduro is not protected by head of state immunity,” asked Francisco Rodríguez, a senior fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “then why did President Trump announce his capture referring to him as ‘President Maduro’—a designation that the US government had stopped using in 2019?”
An unsealed US indictment against Maduro characterizes him as “previously the president of Venezuela.”
Chimène Keitner, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, wrote Tuesday that the Trump administration “appears to feel that its military and economic superiority allow it to act unilaterally in violation of international law, and that cooperation and alliances are overrated.”
“That might seem appealing in the short term, but the world has already seen where unchecked expansionism and claimed spheres of influence lead,” wrote Keitner. “The benefits of following agreed-upon rules have often been recognized only after significant harm caused by their disregard.”
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Independent British MP Jeremy Corbyn addresses demonstrators outside Downing Street protesting against the US military attack on Venezuela in London on January 5, 2026. (Photo by Wiktor Szymanowicz/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump.”
Independent British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn on Tuesday accused United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer of “cowardice” for refusing to condemn the US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president, acts that experts agree were flagrant violations of international law.
Hours after the US attack—as leaders in the region and worldwide voiced horror and outrage—Starmer issued a statement welcoming Nicolás Maduro’s ouster, declaring that “we regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime.”
Starmer later insisted, as the Trump administration laid out plans to control the Venezuelan government indefinitely, that the situation was “complicated,” adding that it was “for the U.S. to justify the action that it has taken.”
Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party now helmed by Starmer, countered in Tribune magazine that “it’s really not that complicated: Bombing a sovereign nation and abducting its head of state is illegal.”
“It is absolutely staggering that a prime minister with a background in law cannot bring himself to say something so obvious,” Corbyn wrote. “It’s not that he doesn’t understand. He understands full well. That is the true abomination: He is choosing to desecrate the meaning of international law to avoid upsetting Donald Trump. This is the true meaning of the so-called ‘special relationship’ that government ministers are so desperate to protect: one where the United States tells us to jump, and we ask how high.”
“Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States.”
The UK, according to the government’s foreign secretary, has been in close contact with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the role it can play in Venezuela, citing the “work we have done over many years to build up relationships and dialogue with Venezuelan opposition parties and with the current authorities in the regime and of course our relationship with the US.”
Corbyn argued that the government’s approach is in some ways reminiscent of its conduct in the lead-up to the disastrous and illegal US invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.
“Twenty-three years later, another Labour prime minister is doing his best to cement the UK’s status as a vassal of the United States,” Corbyn wrote. “Unlike Iraq, the UK says it is not involved in the bombing of Venezuela. Like Iraq, however, the UK is proving once again that it has no interest in standing up for international law.”
President Donald Trump listens as he was speaking with reporters while in flight on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, as returning to Joint Base Andrews, Md
THIS doesn’t end here. Unless the United States faces consequences for what it is doing in Venezuela it will do it, or try to, again and again.
It says so itself — one reason Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron and other Trump appeasers appear so ridiculous.
When Trump in his first term blurted out that US forces were in Syria “only for the oil,” his allies’ embarrassment could be glossed over by a media unwilling to expose years of its own propaganda about humanitarian interventions and counter-terror operations.
Not now. Trump kidnaps a head of state and then announces Washington will “run” his country.
What does that mean? Well, what remains of the Venezuelan government must grant Washington “total access. We need access to the oil and to other things in their country.” What if Venezuela’s Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez won’t do as she’s told? She’ll face “a situation worse than Maduro.” Maybe killed in the kidnapping operation, like the 32 brave Cuban soldiers who died defending her boss.
The Trump White House narrative is in our faces every day. Who can take seriously Merz’s call for an explanation on how US actions are justified in international law, when Secretary for War Pete Hegseth vows to pursue “maximum lethality not tepid legality?” The politicians of the old Washington Consensus merely look pathetic through their “hear no evil, see no evil” approach to the new one.
Hence the backlash against Starmer’s feeble fence-sitting, involving MPs well beyond the socialist left (such as Emily Thornberry), the TUC and the rapidly growing Greens.
There are half-hearted efforts to depict Venezuela as a special case. But again the Trump White House’s loudmouth assertions undermine the pretence.
Attacking Colombia and removing its elected president “sounds good to me,” says Trump. Cuba’s government is “going down.” The US “has to do something with Mexico,” “needs Greenland, absolutely.”
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Demonstrators gathered outside the US consulate in Amsterdam, Netherlands to protest the US attack on Venezuela on January 4, 2026. (Photo by Mouneb Taim/Anadolu via Getty Images)
“International law is not ‘dead’ just because the most powerful no longer respect it,” one expert stressed. “To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur.”
Protests have erupted in the US and around the world following President Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and international law experts on Monday joined in rebuking the deadly military operation, with several outlining exactly how Trump’s actions were unlawful.
At Just Security, University of Reading professor of international law Michael Schmitt, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, and NYU Reiss Center on Law and Security senior fellow Tess Bridgeman explained that the US military’s bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro differs legally from the dozens of boat strikes the US has carried out in the past four months.
The attacks in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have killed more than 100 people and have also been violations of international law, according to numerous legal experts—but they “have occurred in international waters against stateless vessels,” wrote Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman.
In contrast, the operation in the early morning hours on Saturday took place within Venezuelan borders and “is clearly a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,” they wrote. “That prohibition is the bedrock rule of the international system that separates the rule of law from anarchy, safeguards small states from their more powerful neighbors, and protects civilians from the devastation of war.”
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, to which both the US and Venezuela are parties, states:
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.
The scholars vehemently rejected the narrative the Trump administration has put forward for months about its escalation in the Caribbean and Venezuela: that the White House simply aims to protect Americans from drug trafficking, a claim that officials have repeated despite the fact that US and international law enforcement agencies have not identified the South American country as a significant player in the drug trade.
For Trump’s assertions that drug cartels in Venezuela pose an imminent threat to Americans “to make any sense,” wrote the authors, “the drug activity must be characterized as an ‘armed attack’ against the United States… Drug trafficking simply does not qualify as, and has never been considered, an ‘armed attack.’ In brief, the relationship between drug trafficking and the deaths that eventually result from drugs being purchased and used in the United States is far too attenuated to qualify as an armed attack.”
“It is indisputable that drug trafficking is condemnable criminal activity, but it is not the type of activity that triggers the right of self-defense in international law,” they continued, adding that any possible involvement by Maduro’s government in the drug trade also does not rise “to the level of an armed attack against the United States.”
Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman wrote that “Operation Absolute Resolve,” as the administration has termed the Saturday attack that killed more than 80 people, “amounts to an unlawful intervention into Venezuela’s internal affairs,” and that while officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio have claimed the kidnapping of Maduro was simply a law enforcement operation and not an act of war, the US does not have jurisdiction to carry out such an action in Venezuela without the government’s consent.
“The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government,” wrote the authors. “Even though the United States does not recognize the Maduro government as legitimate, international law provides that the relevant officials to grant consent are those of the government that exercises ‘effective control’ over the territory; in this case, officials in the Maduro administration.”
As a head of state, Maduro is also subject to protections from enforcement jurisdiction by another state, they wrote, under “customary international law.”
“The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government.”
The authors wrote that, as Maduro said in a statement Monday, the president may be considered a prisoner of war and be “entitled to the extensive protections of the Third Geneva Convention,” given his status as commander-in-chief of Venezuela’s armed forces. His wife is also “entitled to a robust set of protections afforded to captured civilians” under the Fourth Geneva Convention, they wrote.
The explanation by Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman bolstered remarks by other international law experts including Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism.
Saul on Saturday condemned Trump’s “illegal aggression against Venezuela and the illegal abduction of its leader and his wife,” and said the president “should be impeached and investigated for the alleged killings,” of dozens of Venezuelans in the attack.
“Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life,” he said.
At the Conversation, Australian National University international law professor Sarah Heathcote emphasized that the UN Security Council, which held an emergency meeting Monday in response to the US strike, had not authorized the attack. Such an authorization, along with consent by Venezuela’s government or a credible claim that the US was acting in self-defense, would have made the Trump administration’s actions lawful.
Instead, she wrote, “the US intervention in Venezuela was as brazen and unlawful as its military strike on Iran in June last year.”
“But international law is not ‘dead’ just because the most powerful no longer respect it,” she said. “To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur, including in the current instance.”
At the Security Council meeting, UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized “the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
“Venezuela has experienced decades of internal instability and social and economic turmoil. Democracy has been undermined. Millions of its people have fled the country,” he said. “In situations as confused and complex as the one we now face, it is important to stick to principles. Respect for the UN Charter and all other applicable legal frameworks to safeguard peace and security.”
“International law contains tools to address issues such as illicit traffic in narcotics, disputes about resources, and human rights concerns,” he added. “This is the route we need to take.”
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
The US secretary of defence, Pete Hegseth, and Donald Trump at a press conference after the US strike on Venezuela. The US can veto any UN move to impose sanctions. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
…
Is the US operation in Venezuela justified under international law?
The experts the Guardian spoke to agreed that the US is likely to have violated the terms of the UN charter, which was signed in October 1945 and designed to prevent another conflict on the scale of the second world war. A central provision of this agreement – known as article 2(4) – rules that states must refrain from using military force against other countries and must respect their sovereignty.
Geoffrey Robertson KC, a founding head of Doughty Street Chambers and a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone, said the attack on Venezuela was contrary to article 2(4) of the charter. “The reality is that America is in breach of the United Nations charter,” he added. “It has committed the crime of aggression, which the court at Nuremberg described as the supreme crime, it’s the worst crime of all.”
Elvira Domínguez-Redondo, a professor of international law at Kingston University, described the operation as a “crime of aggression and unlawful use of force against another country”. Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, agreed that the attack could have only been considered lawful if the US had a resolution from the UN security council or was acting in self-defence. “There is just no evidence whatsoever on either of those fronts,” Breau said.
dizzy: I regard genocide as “the worst crime of all.”
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
President Donald Trump listens as he was speaking with reporters while in flight on Air Force One, Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026, as returning to Joint Base Andrews, Md
