5 January 2026, Geneva

Situation Overview

The U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the subsequent declaration of transitional U.S. control represent a decisive rupture with classical Westphalian norms of sovereignty and non-intervention. Unlike prior coercive actions (sanctions, recognition disputes, proxy pressure), this operation bypassed multilateral authorization and asserted direct jurisdictional authority over a sitting head of state.

The incident does not merely test international law; it accelerates a structural shift already underway: from sovereignty as an inviolable principle to sovereignty as a conditional status, contingent on behavior, capability, and geopolitical alignment.

Why This Matters

The Venezuela operation functions as a precedent-setting act, not an isolated anomaly. It signals to both allies and adversaries that:

• Sovereignty is no longer guaranteed by borders alone

• Legitimacy may be overridden by power when institutions stall

• The enforcement of “order” may increasingly occur outside multilateral frameworks

This moment forces a reassessment of what global order looks like when Westphalian assumptions no longer constrain state behavior.

Key Assessment: Characteristics of a Post-Westphalian Order

1. Conditional Sovereignty Supersedes Absolute Sovereignty

In practice, sovereignty is no longer treated as equal or inviolable across states. Instead, it is increasingly tiered:

• Fully protected sovereignty - systemically important or aligned states

• Contested sovereignty - sanctioned, criminalized, or norm-violating regimes

• De facto forfeited sovereignty - states framed as transnational security threats

The Venezuela case formalizes this logic: criminality, governance failure, or strategic value can be invoked to justify external control.

2. Power Reasserts Primacy Over Process

Westphalia assumed restraint through shared rules. The emerging order prioritizes outcomes over procedure:

• UN authorization becomes optional when vetoes are expected

• Legal justification follows action, rather than precedes it

• “Rules-based order” rhetoric diverges from the UN-based legal order

This reflects a return to great-power discretion, albeit framed in the modern language of justice, security, and stabilization.

3. Multipolar Norm Fragmentation Accelerates

The global response to Venezuela reveals not consensus, but normative bifurcation:

• The U.S. and select partners emphasize enforcement, stability, and deterrence

• Russia, China, Iran, and much of the Global South emphasize sovereignty and non-interference

Rather than converging norms, the system is fragmenting into competing legitimacy frameworks, each enforced within its own sphere of influence.

4. Institutions Lose Monopoly on Legitimacy

Multilateral institutions remain rhetorically central but operationally constrained:

• The UN can convene, condemn, and document, but not compel

• Security Council paralysis reinforces unilateral pathways

• Regional bodies lack enforcement capacity against great powers

The result is an order where legitimacy is increasingly asserted through action, not conferred through institutions.

5. Strategic Assets Drive Intervention Logic

Energy security, migration control, transnational crime, and information dominance increasingly intersect with sovereignty claims.

In the Venezuela case, oil infrastructure, regional instability, and criminal networks were central to the justification narrative, highlighting how material and cognitive domains now rival territory as drivers of intervention.

Strategic Implications

For States

• Regime survival increasingly depends on narrative legitimacy, internal cohesion, and alliance depth, not legal recognition alone

• Weak or isolated states face higher intervention risk regardless of formal sovereignty

For International Law

• Law becomes selectively enforced, eroding predictability

• Legal norms persist, but as tools of argument rather than constraints on action

For Global Stability

• Deterrence shifts from rule compliance to power signaling

• Precedents invite emulation, increasing escalation risk in contested regions

Forward Outlook

The post-Westphalian order emerging from this incident is not anarchic, but it is hierarchical, conditional, and contested.

Expect:

• More unilateral or coalition-based enforcement actions

• Greater emphasis on criminalization and “governance failure” narratives

• Accelerating erosion of universal sovereignty norms

• A widening gap between legal theory and strategic reality

The Venezuela operation marks a point where the international system stops pretending Westphalia still governs behavior, and begins openly negotiating what replaces it.

Bottom Line

The Westphalian system still exists as a formal legal and diplomatic framework. States continue to affirm sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and non-intervention in treaties, UN resolutions, official statements, and international law. No alternative system has formally replaced it.

However, state behavior increasingly departs from those principles when power, security, or strategic interests are at stake. The U.S.–Venezuela incident does not end the old order alone, but it makes clear that sovereignty now survives only where power, legitimacy, and alignment permit it.