e often present crises in Venezuela through a moral lens: humanitarian collapse, democratic erosion, mass displacement. This framing, while accurate, is incomplete. Venezuela is also a systemic failure case, and those failures are international as well as domestic. The international order was designed to moderate power, prevent escalation, and transform moral urgency into collective action. International law was never meant to abolish geopolitics. It was meant to discipline it. The problem today is not legal ambiguity but institutional paralysis.
The Law Remains Intact, The Mediators Do Not
The legal framework governing the use of force is unequivocal. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Exceptions remain narrow and institutionally mediated: Security Council authorization or self–defense under Article 51. This position has been consistently reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice, most notably in Nicaragua v. United States (1986), which rejected indirect intervention and proxy force as violations of international law. As Antonio Cassese argued, the prohibition on the use of force is a jus cogens norm not because it is morally idealistic, but because without it the international system dissolves into discretionary violence. Doctrinally, the law is clear. Operationally, the system is broken.
R2P: Normative Progress, Institutional Deadlock
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), endorsed at the 2005 World Summit, marked a significant normative evolution: sovereignty implies responsibility, and mass atrocity crimes engage the international community. Crucially, however, R2P was deliberately anchored in collective decision making through the Security Council. As Thomas M. Franck emphasized, legitimacy in international law derives not only from moral intent, but from procedural fairness and institutional credibility. Here lies the central failure. The UN system, constrained by veto politics, geopolitical rivalry, and procedural inertia, has lost its capacity to translate moral urgency into timely, collective response. This institutional lag fuels frustration and creates incentives for unilateralism. Yet institutional failure does not generate legal authorization. It generates systemic risk.
Democracy, Legitimacy, and the Limits of 20th Century Institutions
Within the inter–American system, democracy is recognized as a right of peoples and a duty of governments, a normative commitment that legitimately sustains diplomatic pressure, sanctions, mediation, humanitarian assistance, refugee protection, and electoral support but crucially does not create an autonomous exception to the prohibition on the use of force. As Harold Hongju Koh long argued, international law advances through transnational legal process: interaction, interpretation, and internalization, not through episodic coercion that weakens normative stability. Yet interventionist discourse continues to rely on the seductive formula of “illegal but legitimate,” a language that may explain political tolerance but does not generate law and, when normalized, corrodes the rule–based order itself.
The deeper danger, however, is not excessive legal restraint but institutional incapacity: when multilateral bodies fail to mediate, power reasserts itself; when power acts alone, legality erodes; and when legality erodes, legitimacy fragments. This is not a Venezuelan anomaly but a structural condition of contemporary global governance. From a Statecraft 3.0 perspective, Venezuela exposes a fundamental mismatch: 21st–century crises governed by 20th–century institutions, as geopolitics now moves at the speed of networks, markets, information flows, and intelligent systems, while multilateral mechanisms remain locked in consensus cycles designed for a bipolar era. When institutions can no longer moderate power, law becomes aspirational rather than operational. Supporting the Venezuelan people, therefore, requires more than moral alignment; it demands institutional renewal, including Security Council decision-making reform and veto restraint, stronger regional–global coordination, preventive accountability mechanisms prior to escalation, and a redefinition of sovereignty anchored in legitimacy rather than control. Venezuela is not an argument against international law; it is an argument for upgrading global statecraft.
a global affairs media network
From moral consensus to institutional paralysis
Image via Unsplash+.
January 7, 2026
The crisis of international order today is not legal ambiguity but institutional paralysis. When global systems fail to translate moral consensus into collective action, legality erodes, legitimacy fragments—and unilateral power fills the void, writes Rui Duarte.
W
e often present crises in Venezuela through a moral lens: humanitarian collapse, democratic erosion, mass displacement. This framing, while accurate, is incomplete. Venezuela is also a systemic failure case, and those failures are international as well as domestic. The international order was designed to moderate power, prevent escalation, and transform moral urgency into collective action. International law was never meant to abolish geopolitics. It was meant to discipline it. The problem today is not legal ambiguity but institutional paralysis.
The Law Remains Intact, The Mediators Do Not
The legal framework governing the use of force is unequivocal. Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Exceptions remain narrow and institutionally mediated: Security Council authorization or self–defense under Article 51. This position has been consistently reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice, most notably in Nicaragua v. United States (1986), which rejected indirect intervention and proxy force as violations of international law. As Antonio Cassese argued, the prohibition on the use of force is a jus cogens norm not because it is morally idealistic, but because without it the international system dissolves into discretionary violence. Doctrinally, the law is clear. Operationally, the system is broken.
R2P: Normative Progress, Institutional Deadlock
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), endorsed at the 2005 World Summit, marked a significant normative evolution: sovereignty implies responsibility, and mass atrocity crimes engage the international community. Crucially, however, R2P was deliberately anchored in collective decision making through the Security Council. As Thomas M. Franck emphasized, legitimacy in international law derives not only from moral intent, but from procedural fairness and institutional credibility. Here lies the central failure. The UN system, constrained by veto politics, geopolitical rivalry, and procedural inertia, has lost its capacity to translate moral urgency into timely, collective response. This institutional lag fuels frustration and creates incentives for unilateralism. Yet institutional failure does not generate legal authorization. It generates systemic risk.
Democracy, Legitimacy, and the Limits of 20th Century Institutions
Within the inter–American system, democracy is recognized as a right of peoples and a duty of governments, a normative commitment that legitimately sustains diplomatic pressure, sanctions, mediation, humanitarian assistance, refugee protection, and electoral support but crucially does not create an autonomous exception to the prohibition on the use of force. As Harold Hongju Koh long argued, international law advances through transnational legal process: interaction, interpretation, and internalization, not through episodic coercion that weakens normative stability. Yet interventionist discourse continues to rely on the seductive formula of “illegal but legitimate,” a language that may explain political tolerance but does not generate law and, when normalized, corrodes the rule–based order itself.
The deeper danger, however, is not excessive legal restraint but institutional incapacity: when multilateral bodies fail to mediate, power reasserts itself; when power acts alone, legality erodes; and when legality erodes, legitimacy fragments. This is not a Venezuelan anomaly but a structural condition of contemporary global governance. From a Statecraft 3.0 perspective, Venezuela exposes a fundamental mismatch: 21st–century crises governed by 20th–century institutions, as geopolitics now moves at the speed of networks, markets, information flows, and intelligent systems, while multilateral mechanisms remain locked in consensus cycles designed for a bipolar era. When institutions can no longer moderate power, law becomes aspirational rather than operational. Supporting the Venezuelan people, therefore, requires more than moral alignment; it demands institutional renewal, including Security Council decision-making reform and veto restraint, stronger regional–global coordination, preventive accountability mechanisms prior to escalation, and a redefinition of sovereignty anchored in legitimacy rather than control. Venezuela is not an argument against international law; it is an argument for upgrading global statecraft.
