THE ILLEGAL WARS
Who is engaged in an illegal war?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 4, 2026, several nations and leaders are facing accusations or legal designations of being engaged in “illegal wars” or “armed aggression,” depending on the perspective of international bodies, domestic critics, or opposing governments.
- The United States in Venezuela
Following the January 3, 2026, military operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, the United States is at the center of intense debate regarding the legality of its actions.
Congressional Critics: Several U.S. lawmakers have explicitly labeled the operation an “illegal war.” Senator Tim Kaine stated there is no constitutional or legal justification for waging war to depose a leader and seize resources without congressional approval. Senator Ruben Gallego similarly called the conflict illegal, describing the U.S. as becoming a “world bully”.
International Law Experts: Legal commentators and the United Nations Secretary-General have suggested the strikes violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state without UN Security Council authorization or a valid self-defense claim.
Official Designations: Nations including Russia, China, Mexico, and Iran have formally condemned the U.S. operation as an “act of armed aggression” and a violation of international law.
2. Russia in Ukraine
Russia’s ongoing military actions in Ukraine continue to be widely characterized as an illegal war by the international community.
Illegal Annexation: The U.S. and its allies maintain that Russia is engaged in an illegal and unjustified war, specifically highlighting the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories.
International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC continues its investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the invasion.
Reciprocal Accusations: Conversely, Russia has labeled recent Ukrainian strikes in occupied territories as “terrorist acts” and “war crimes”.
3. Israel in Gaza and the West Bank
The legality of Israel’s military operations remains under intense international scrutiny.
ICC Warrants: In late 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense officials for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including using starvation as a method of warfare.
Genocide Allegations: Various international leaders and human rights organizations have accused Israel of violating international law through its conduct in Gaza.”
Who is engaged in an illegal war?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 2026, the term “illegal war” is being used in several contexts to describe current and historical military actions that allegedly violate international or domestic laws.
Current Conflicts (2026)
United States Military Action in Venezuela: On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a “large-scale strike” in Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Many legal experts and U.S. lawmakers have labeled this an “illegal war” or an “unauthorized act of war” because it was launched by President Donald Trump without congressional approval, which they argue violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: International bodies and nations continue to characterize Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine as an illegal war of aggression, citing violations of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state.
Historical and Technical Contexts
Historical U.S. Interventions: Critics and legal scholars often retrospectively label past U.S. military interventions—such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and bombings in Cambodia and Laos—as “illegal” due to a lack of specific United Nations Security Council authorization or formal congressional declarations of war.
Technically “Unfinished” Wars: Some nations remain in a technical state of war because they never signed a formal peace treaty, though they are not currently engaged in active “illegal” combat. Examples include North and South Korea, and Russia and Japan.
Definition of “Illegal War”: Under international law, a war is generally considered illegal if it is a “crime of aggression”—a conflict initiated for reasons other than self-defense or without authorization from the UN Security Council.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE US-VENEZUELA WAR
What are the legal arguments against the U.S. strike in Venezuela?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 2026, the legal arguments against the U.S. military strike in Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro focus on violations of both domestic and international law.
Domestic Law Arguments (U.S. Constitution)
Critics and legal experts argue the strike exceeded executive authority under the following frameworks:
Unauthorized Use of Force: The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. No Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was passed for operations in Venezuela.
War Powers Resolution Violation: Opponents claim the action violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires a president to seek congressional approval except in cases of “imminent self-defense”. Lawmakers argue there was no evidence of an imminent threat from Venezuela to justify unilateral action.
Lack of Prior Notification: The administration allegedly failed to notify the “Gang of Eight” senior lawmakers before the operation, which is required for sensitive covert actions.
Redefinition of War as Law Enforcement: Some legal scholars argue that framing the removal of a foreign head of state as a “law enforcement mission” (based on Maduro’s drug-trafficking indictment) is an illegal attempt to bypass war-making constraints.
International Law Arguments
Under international law, the intervention is characterized by critics as a “crime of aggression”:
Violation of the UN Charter: Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Experts assert the strike lacked the two legal justifications for force: authorization by the UN Security Council or a valid claim of self-defense.
Sovereignty and Non-Intervention: Legal analysts and foreign ministries (such as those of China and Iran) have condemned the action as a “blatant violation of national sovereignty” and territorial integrity.
Invalidity of “Consent”: While some argue the U.S. could claim it had consent from the opposition leader Edmundo González (whom the U.S. views as the winner of the 2024 election), experts note that without control of territory, such consent does not legally authorize foreign military intervention.
International Conventions on War: Critics suggest that using military force to seize state resources, such as oil, violates the Hague Convention of 1907, which forbids pillage and the confiscation of private property during conflict.”
THE SOLUTIONS: VENEZUELA WAR
What are the solutions?
GoogleAI Mode: “In the immediate aftermath of the January 3, 2026, U.S. military operation in Venezuela, several diplomatic, legal, and political solutions have been proposed by international actors and experts to address the resulting crisis.
Diplomatic and International Solutions
UN Security Council Emergency Session: At the request of Colombia, with backing from Russia and China, the UN Security Council is scheduled to meet on Monday, January 5, 2026, to discuss the situation under the agenda “Threats to International Peace and Security”.
Region-Led Transition: Many world leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have called for a transition to democracy guided by Edmundo González, the opposition candidate from the 2024 election.
Multilateral Mediation: Nations like Norway and Malaysia have emphasized that an inclusive political process and diplomatic negotiations involving the Venezuelan opposition are the only viable paths to stability.
Domestic Legal Solutions (U.S.)
War Powers Resolution Votes: The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a bipartisan resolution to block further use of U.S. forces in Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
Congressional Oversight: Lawmakers are seeking comprehensive briefings from the administration to determine if the strike fell within the president’s inherent authority or if it requires a formal Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
Governance and Economic Proposals
International Trusteeship/Custodianship: President Trump has proposed a temporary U.S. “custodial role” to run the country until a transition can occur. Experts warn this could inflame nationalist sentiment if it resembles an occupation.
Oil Industry Stabilization: Solutions involve securing oil facilities—the country’s economic lifeline—and potentially allowing U.S. firms like Chevron to expand operations to fund reconstruction.
Humanitarian Aid and Financing: Addressing the humanitarian crisis through immediate access to financing from multilateral organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to increase imports of food and medicine.
Amnesty for Regime Underlings: Experts suggest offering guarantees of safe passage or limited amnesty to remaining regime members in exchange for a peaceful transfer of power to the opposition.”
LIKELIHOOD THE STRIKE FELL WITHIN THE PRESIDENT’S INHERENT POWER
On a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood the strike fell within the president’s inherent authority?
GoogleAI Mode: “Determining the likelihood that the January 3, 2026, strike falls within the president’s inherent authority involves a sharp divide between administration supporters and constitutional experts.
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents “Highly Unlikely/Illegal” and 5 represents “Highly Likely/Legal”:
Score: 2/5 (Low Likelihood of Absolute Authority)
While the administration and some allies defend the action, a majority of independent legal scholars and opposition lawmakers argue it lacks a sufficient constitutional or statutory basis.
Arguments for Authority (Points toward 5):
Article II Commander-in-Chief Powers: The administration relies on the president’s broad inherent authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to use military force with “broad discretion”.
Protection of U.S. Personnel: Senator Mike Lee and Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated the strike was likely authorized to protect U.S. personnel engaged in a “law enforcement mission” to arrest Maduro.
Historical Precedent: Supporters point to the 1989 capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama and other historical “snatch-and-grab” operations that courts have historically deferred to the executive on.
Arguments Against Authority (Points toward 1):
Lack of Imminent Threat: Critics argue that Article II authority is typically restricted to “imminent self-defense.” They contend Venezuela posed no such threat, making the strike a violation of the War Powers Resolution.
No Congressional Authorization: No Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) was passed. Experts note that a “large-scale strike” and plans to “run” a foreign country exceed the president’s unilateral powers.
Internal Administration Doubts: Prior to the strike, some administration officials reportedly admitted that land strikes in Venezuela would constitute “war” and requires congressional approval.
Constitutional Separation of Powers: Many scholars believe this “unauthorized military attack” represents a “surrendering” of congressional power and a “sickening return” to unilateral interventionism.
Conclusion: The administration’s framing of the strike as a limited law enforcement action provides some legal cover (raising the score from a 1), but the scale of the military operation and the lack of congressional consultation lead most experts to conclude it likely overstepped the bounds of presidential authority.”
THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION & VENEZUELA
What is the War Powers Resolution and how does Venezuela fit?
GoogleAI Mode: “The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a federal law designed to check the U.S. President’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.
In the context of the January 3, 2026, strike in Venezuela, the Resolution is central to the debate over the operation’s legality and the future of U.S. involvement.
Key Provisions of the War Powers Resolution
The law mandates specific actions when a president introduces U.S. forces into “hostilities”:
Consultation: The president must, in every possible instance, consult with Congress before introducing forces into hostilities.
Notification: The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of military action, explaining the rationale and constitutional authority.
Time Limits: Forces must be withdrawn within 60 days unless Congress declares war or grants a specific Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). An additional 30 days is allowed for safe withdrawal.
How Venezuela Fits (January 2026)
Following the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the Resolution is being invoked as follows:
Unauthorized Action: Critics argue the strike was “unauthorized” because no AUMF was passed for Venezuela. Some lawmakers have labeled it an “illegal military operation” that bypassed the Constitution’s separation of powers.
Lack of Prior Briefing: Lawmakers note the administration failed to provide the “prior notification” typically required for sensitive covert actions, only briefing some Republicans while keeping Democrats “in the dark”.
Immediate Legislative Response: Bipartisan War Powers Resolutions (e.g., H.Con.Res. 61 and S.J.Res. 90) have been introduced to force the removal of U.S. troops from Venezuela unless authorized by a formal vote.
Administrative Justification: The Trump administration has countered by arguing that drug cartels in Venezuela are “unlawful combatants” and that the strike was a law enforcement action rather than an act of war, which they claim falls outside the scope of the Resolution’s “hostilities” definition.”
CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATING THR WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
What are the legal consequences for violating the War Powers Resolution?
GoogleAI Mode: “Violating the War Powers Resolution primarily carries political and legislative consequences rather than direct criminal penalties, as enforcement mechanisms are largely dependent on congressional action.
Following the January 3, 2026, U.S. strike in Venezuela, the potential consequences include:
Congressional Remedies
Funding Prohibitions: Congress can use the “power of the purse” to pass legislation explicitly denying federal funds for further military action in Venezuela. This is often tied to high-stakes legislative deadlines, such as the looming January 30, 2026, government shutdown.
Forced Withdrawal: Under the Resolution, if Congress does not authorize the use of force, the President must terminate hostilities within 60 to 90 days. Bipartisan resolutions are currently being prepared to force this withdrawal.
Impeachment: While rare, legal experts and some lawmakers argue that “unauthorized military attack[s]” of this scale constitute “impeachable behavior” under Article II of the Constitution.
Veto Overrides: Any new legislation to curb executive war powers or fix the Resolution would face a presidential veto, requiring a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers to override.
Judicial Challenges
Standing Issues: Historically, federal courts have dismissed challenges to the War Powers Resolution by citing the “political question doctrine,” viewing war powers as a conflict between the political branches rather than a matter for the judiciary.
Institutional Lawsuits: Proposals exist for Congress to authorize the Speaker of the House or a committee to sue on behalf of the institution, which would have a higher likelihood of meeting legal standing requirements than individual member lawsuits.
Criminal Accountability
Presidential Immunity: Under the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, a president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “core constitutional” acts and at least presumptive immunity for other “official acts”.
Department of Justice Policy: The DOJ maintains a long-standing policy (OLC memoranda) that a sitting president cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office.
International Repercussions
UN Sanctions: While the UN Security Council can impose trade restrictions or arms embargos, the U.S. possesses a veto, making formal international legal sanctions against the administration unlikely.
General Assembly Condemnation: The UN General Assembly may vote to condemn the action as a “flagrant violation of international law,” as it did during the 1989 invasion of Panama, which provides diplomatic but not legal force.
AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”
THE SOLUTIONS: VENEZUELA
What are the solutions to Venezuela?
GoogleAI Mode: “As of January 4, 2026, the proposed solutions to the crisis in Venezuela following the U.S. military capture of Nicolás Maduro focus on three main areas: political transition, legislative constraints on war powers, and humanitarian stabilization.
- Political Transition and Governance
Multiple actors are vying for a role in Venezuela’s future governance:
Opposition-Led Transition: Opposition leader María Corina Machado has called for Edmundo González Urrutia—widely viewed as the winner of the 2024 election—to be recognized as the legitimate president and commander-in-chief. She has proposed a transition that installs a new government within “the first 100 days”.
U.S. “Custodianship”: President Trump has proposed that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela for an unspecified period until a “safe, proper and judicious transition” can occur. This includes plans to seize and refurbish Venezuela’s oil reserves with the help of U.S. companies.
Managed Chavista Succession: Some analysts suggest an “off-ramp” where remaining members of the Maduro regime, such as Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, participate in a negotiated transition to avoid total state collapse.
- Legislative and Legal Solutions (U.S.)
To prevent further escalation or an open-ended military commitment, U.S. lawmakers are pursuing legal remedies:
War Powers Resolution: A bipartisan resolution (e.g., S.J.Res.90) is set for a vote to block the use of U.S. forces in Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
Funding Prohibitions: Lawmakers like Senator Tim Kaine have proposed legislation to prohibit the use of federal funds for military force in Venezuela without explicit congressional approval.
Congressional Briefings: Leaders in both chambers are demanding immediate briefings from the administration to understand the legality of the “law enforcement” mission used to justify the strike.
- International and Humanitarian Solutions
Multilateral Mediation: The UN Security Council is scheduled to meet on Monday, January 5, at the request of Colombia to discuss the situation. Organizations like the Organization of American States (OAS) are viewed as critical for legitimizing a transitional government.
Economic Aid: A high priority for any new government will be accessing financing from multilateral organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to immediately increase imports of food and medicine.
Security Stabilization: Experts recommend an international stabilization force, possibly under a UN mandate, to provide the security necessary to deliver aid and organize new elections while deterring armed groups.
NGO-Led Relief: Organizations like World Vision and Save the Children are expanding child protection, food security, and water/sanitation programs to manage the ongoing humanitarian needs both within Venezuela and in neighboring host countries.”
World Peace 
Leave a comment