The recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela has ignited a critical debate about the fundamental architecture of global governance. At a roundtable hosted by the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) in Lagos, international relations experts dissected the structural and legal boundaries that define—and often constrain—the United Nations’ ability to respond to actions by a permanent member of its own Security Council. Their analysis reveals a system caught between its founding ideals and the hard realities of power politics.
The UN’s Enforcer Dilemma: Sovereignty vs. Collective Security
Prof. Remi Ajibewa, a former Director of Political Affairs at ECOWAS, framed the core paradox of the UN. “It is crucial to understand that the UN is not a world government,” he stated. “It is an intergovernmental organization, much like ECOWAS or the African Union. It possesses no sovereign power of its own and cannot enforce laws without the consent of its member-states.”
This foundational principle means real decision-making authority, especially on matters of peace and security, resides with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (P5): the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. The veto power held by each is the ultimate manifestation of state sovereignty within the system.
“The UN is effective when major powers cooperate,” Ajibewa explained, “but it is structurally limited when veto powers or a lack of state consent prevents enforcement. In the case of Venezuela, the UN can condemn actions, investigate, mediate, and apply political pressure. However, it cannot realistically authorize collective military or sanctions enforcement against a P5 member like the U.S., as that very member would veto the resolution.” He likened the situation to a “toothless bulldog” only when the leash is held by the very subject it is meant to restrain.
The Legal Framework: Where Intervention Crosses the Line
Dr. Rita Agu, a Senior Research Fellow at NIIA, anchored the discussion in specific international law. She cited Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the UN itself from intervening “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,” and the parallel principle of customary international law forbidding states from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
“A military invasion or an arrest operation aimed at forcibly removing a state’s leadership constitutes a direct intervention and an unlawful interference in its political independence,” Agu asserted. She addressed the reported abduction of President Nicolás Maduro directly: “Such an act violates multiple layers of protection—territorial sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention, diplomatic immunities, and fundamental human rights.”
She emphasized that cross-border law enforcement is permissible only under two strict conditions: 1) with the explicit consent of the host state, or 2) under a binding mandate from the UN Security Council. An operation without either constitutes a violation of international law.
Broader Implications and a Path Forward
The experts linked the immediate crisis to a wider pattern. Prof. Ajibewa noted that recurring global tensions often stem from domestic governance failures. “As long as leaders act against the welfare of their people, we will see these internal crises spill over and become international flashpoints, testing the limits of our systems,” he said.
Looking ahead, Dr. Agu proposed concrete steps for the international community:
- Reaffirmation of Core Principles: A collective restatement of the prohibition on the use of force and respect for the office of the Head of State.
- Shift to Multilateralism: Moving away from unilateral enforcement to utilizing established, albeit imperfect, multilateral legal mechanisms.
- Prohibition of Extraterritorial Arrests: Condemning cross-border arrest operations as a dangerous precedent that undermines state sovereignty and international law.
The roundtable concluded that the Venezuela scenario is not an anomaly but a stress test of the post-World War II international order. It highlights the enduring tension between the legal ideal of sovereign equality and the political reality of great power privilege. The UN’s limits, as examined in Lagos, are not merely procedural but are baked into its very design—a design where the world’s most powerful states are both the primary subjects of the rules and the ultimate arbiters of their enforcement.
Edited by Ijeoma Popoola. Source: NAN News.
