Footage of the US pursuit of the Marinera (Photo: US Coast Guard)
The UK justified its support for North Atlantic operation, saying sanction-dodging ship was stateless. Legal experts say that’s debatable
The US seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker, with British military support, in the North Atlantic may have violated international law, legal experts tell Declassified.
“Overall, there would appear to be no credible basis in law for this interdiction,” Douglas Guilfoyle, professor of international law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney said.
…
Just before 2pm on Wednesday, US European Command announced the ship’s seizure, with Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirming soon after that it had provided the US with “enabling support in full compliance with international law”.
The support included Royal Air Force surveillance and the provision of the RFA Tideforce, a Royal Navy auxiliary ship “designed to provide key underway replenishment at sea”.
Defence secretary John Healey justified the UK’s involvement, citing the ship’s “nefarious history” of Russian-Iranian axis sanctions evasion “fuelling terrorism, conflict and misery from the Middle East to Ukraine”.
…
Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said a vessel could only be stopped, searched and seized on the high seas under four conditions.
These are if it is a pirate ship, engaged in unauthorised broadcasting, is stateless/not-flying a flag or acting in violation of US Security Council resolutions.
“None of those conditions appear to apply in this instance as I understand the tanker was Russian flagged (and that is not in dispute), and the only sanctions it was subject to were US sanctions imposed under US,” he said.
“So, on the facts, this would appear to be extraterritorial US national law enforcement taking place on the high seas/international waters, or even within the UK’s 200 [nautical mile] exclusive economic zone.”
The UK support, he added, was “not exceptional, especially as the tanker was off the coast of Scotland and would have in the normal course of events been under watch by the UK”.
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.
The high-level diplomatic meeting was marked by two clearly distinguishable positions: those who supported Washington’s actions and those who rejected them, claiming they violated international law and the South American country’s national sovereignty.
Rosemary DiCarlo, representative of the Secretary-General, said that the actions could generate greater instability in the nation: “We meet at a grave time following the January 3 United States military action in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” In addition, DiCarlo, following the statements of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, emphasized that the attack constituted a military aggression that violates the UN Charter.
Future of the UN Charter at stake
Renowned scholar Jeffrey D. Sachs, president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, also addressed the session and highlighted that beyond the immediate violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, the US actions constitute an existential threat to the entire UN system. “The issue before the Council today is not the character of the government of Venezuela. The issue is whether any Member State—by force, coercion, or economic strangulation—has the right to determine Venezuela’s political future or to exercise control over its affairs. This question goes directly to 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.”
Sachs implored the UNSC to take action and call on the US to end its military threats and attacks against Venezuela, end its naval blockade, and withdraw its military forces from the Caribbean which have been amassing since August.
Sachs affirmed that, “Peace and the survival of humanity depend on whether the United Nations Charter remains a living instrument of international law or is allowed to wither into irrelevance.”
Neocolonialism, illegalityand imperialism: condemnation of the attack
Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s representative to the Security Council, strongly condemned the US military actions against his country. He stated that what happened on January 3 constituted an “illegitimate armed attack” that lacked legal justification and violated the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, and the principles of sovereignty. The situation also calls into question the “credibility of international law,” as it seems that “the law is optional” when it is one country and not another that “kidnaps a head of state”.
China
Along the same lines, Fu Cong, representative of China, said: “[China] strongly condemns the unilateral, illegal, and bullying acts against Venezuela.” “[The United States] wantonly tramples upon Venezuela’s sovereignty, security, and legitimate rights and interests,” he said. He also called on the United States to return to dialogue to reach a peaceful solution.
Cuba
Cuba, for its part, categorically rejected the “imperialist and fascist aggressions” of the United States and warned of “criminal and hegemonic plans” that Washington is carrying out. In addition, the Cuban representative stated that the United States commits acts of economic suffocation and maritime terrorism against the governments it seeks to overthrow, which is in flagrant contradiction with the UN Charter and international law. He asserted that the objective behind the “kidnapping” of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is to gain “control over Venezuela’s land and natural resources.”
Russia
Likewise, the representative of the Russian Federation, Vassily Nebenzia, condemned the “armed aggression” against Venezuela for violating international law and demanded the immediate release of the “legitimately-elected president”, Nicolás Maduro. He also called for an end to fear and hypocrisy in the face of US actions that seek to justify “such an egregious act of aggression [out of fear of the] American global gendarme.” Finally, he stated that the actions of the United States constitute new examples of “neocolonialism and imperialism”.
Colombia
For her part, Leonor Zalabata said that her country, Colombia, strongly condemns the actions of January 3, and affirmed that the use of force, according to the UN Charter, can only be used in exceptional situations, such as self-defense, but never to take political control of another state, as Trump said he would do with Venezuela. The attacks, she added, could lead to a large-scale migration that would require significant budget allocations to care for the migrants. Colombia shares thousands of kilometers of border with Venezuela, and Trump has directly threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro with carrying out a similar attack on Colombian territory.
Mexico
Mexico also strongly criticized the military attack and stated that such actions “should not be allowed” because they jeopardize multilateralism and international law. It called on members to abandon double standards and “act decisively” in respect for the national sovereignty of the peoples of each country, who are the only ones authorized to decide “their destiny”.
Brazil
Brazil also joined in the criticism. Representative Sérgio França stated that “South America is a zone of peace,” and therefore his country rejects military intervention in Venezuela, which “crossed an unacceptable line”, and violates the UN Charter and international law.
The violation of international law: moderate criticism of the United States
Several members of the Security Council also criticized Washington’s actions, albeit indirectly or less forcefully.
United Kingdom
Among them was the United Kingdom, whose representative, James Kariuki, stated that his country reaffirms its commitment to international law and the principles of the United Nations. However, he also criticized the actions of the Maduro government for allegedly increasing poverty, repressing the opposition, and the illegitimacy of his government.
Panama
Along the same lines, Panama’s representative, Eloy Alfaro de Alba, condemned the US attack. He stated that US military actions could have very serious consequences for peace in the Latin American region. He also stressed that his country, which suffered a US invasion between 1989 and 1990, reaffirms its respect for the sovereignty of nations. However, he also took the time to criticize what he called Maduro’s illegitimate and authoritarian government, which he said had eroded the democratic system after the 2024 elections.
Chile
Chile was another country that criticized the US military actions “unilaterally in Venezuela,” according to the South American country’s representative, Paula Narváez. “Chile does not recognize the Maduro regime, but serious human rights violations… cannot be resolved militarily and can only be addressed through peaceful, gradual, and incisive processes.”
“There is no war”: in defense of the US attack
For his part, US representative Michael Waltz defended his government’s actions and stated that “there is no war against Venezuela or its people”. On the contrary, Waltz argued that the attack was “a surgical law enforcement operation to apprehend two indicted fugitives, [the] narco-terrorist Nicolás Maduro and Celia Flores.”
Argentina
Another country that openly supported the attack was Argentina. Its representative, Francisco Tropepi, welcomed Trump’s “decisive action” and stated that it was justified by Maduro’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking. However, he called for the situation to be normalized and for institutional order to be restored as soon as possible.
Latvia
Along the same lines, Latvia’s representative, Sanita Pavļuta-Deslandes, indirectly justified the radical measure taken by the United States when she told the Security Council that Maduro’s government had violated human rights and encouraged drug trafficking and corruption.
The international community and international law are under threat
However, despite some direct and indirect support, the United States’ actions have not been well received by the majority of the United Nations Security Council. Several of its members understand that if such actions are not strongly condemned, they could pave the way for similar military actions in other parts of the world.
Asian and African countries fear a new wave of colonialism in their lands, and Europeans, many of whom do not support Maduro, see expansionist arguments looming over Greenland, which have not been heard in Europe for centuries.
Thus, the international community and international law (both structured after the defeat of the Axis in 1945) face an immense challenge following the attack on Venezuela. Whether they will emerge stronger or weakened will become clear in the coming months.
Original article by Pablo Meriguet republished from peoples dispatch under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.
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.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez holds a press conference following the European Union (EU) Leaders’ Summit in Brussels, Belgium, on October 23, 2025. [Dursun Aydemir – Anadolu Agency]
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said on Monday that the territorial unity of Ukraine, the Gaza Strip and Venezuela is not open to negotiation.
In a post on the X platform, Sanchez said that “respect for the sovereignty of all states and their territorial integrity is a non-negotiable principle, from Ukraine to Gaza, including Venezuela”.
Commenting on remarks by US President Donald Trump, who described Greenland as having a strong strategic position and said the United States needs it for national security reasons, Sanchez expressed his rejection of those statements.
He added that Spain “will always remain actively committed to the United Nations and will be in full solidarity with Denmark and the people of Greenland”.
On Sunday, Spain, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Uruguay and Chile said in a joint statement that they “reject unilateral US military operations” in Venezuelan territory.
The statement, distributed by the Spanish authorities, said: “We express our deep concern about what is happening in Venezuela and our rejection of unilateral military actions carried out on Venezuelan territory.” Such actions had violated the “basic principles of international law, in particular the prohibition of the use of force and respect for territorial sovereignty established in the United Nations Charter.”
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
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.
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.”
