Trump threatens Cuba, Havana stands with Venezuela & warns of dangerous precedent for Latin America

At the centre of this debate lies Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits States from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State. This clause has long been considered a pillar of the international legal system that emerged after 1945. International lawyers have long cautioned that the ban on the use of force is most vulnerable to gradual erosion through practice and interpretation rather than outright rejection.

States rarely reject the ban on the use of force outright. Rather, they use expansive interpretations of self-defence to defend acts that would typically be forbidden by international law. As time goes on, this weakens the rule. This trend is well reflected in the recent strike on Venezuela.

Regardless of how it was termed, the US strike was a use of force on the territory of a sovereign State. The only two restricted justifications for the use of such force recognised by international law are the consent of the UN Security Council and the use of self-defence in response to an armed attack. Neither criterion appears to have been fulfilled in this case.