In a time of intensifying global conflict and political polarization, recent commentary on the erosion of the rule of law has sparked urgent debate across international news, legal circle, and diplomatic communities.
Rule of Law draws comparisons between authoritarian trends in Russia under Vladimir Putin and controversial policy shifts in the United States under Donald Trump, analysts warn. That ignoring established legal norms, both domestically and internationally, poses serious threats to democratic governance and global stability.
The American Watchdog December 2025 piece “When the Rule of Law Is Ignored: Lesson from Putin and Trump” underscores why adherence to law is important. Whether international or domestic is foundational to the credibility and legitimacy of nation-states.
This comprehensive report explores that argument in depth, contextualizing it with wider developments, legal interpretations, and expert insight.
International Rule of Law at the Core: The United Nations Charter
The United Nation Charters ratified in 1945 provides the foundational legal frameworks for internationals relation in the post World War II world. Its cores principle, especially the prohibition of the uses of force and respect for state sovereignty is designed to prevent exactly the kind of unilateral military actions that has drawn controversy in recent month.
Rule of Law Key Provisions
Article 2(4) prohibits use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state excepted where authorized by the UN Security Council or exercised in legitimate selfdefense.
Article 51 permits selfdefense only if an armed attacks occurs or is imminent and such actions must be reports to the Security Councils.
These article undergird global expectation that even powerful nation must respect legal limit on military force. Yet critic argues that recent U.S. action in and around Venezuelan water may violate these very norm.
Venezuela and the Rule of Law: Maritime Strikes and Blockade
In 2025 the United States, under the administration of President Donald Trump, escalated military operation in the Caribbean and Pacific near Venezuela. This included maritime strike against suspected drug smuggling vessel and seizures of oil tanker action justified by Washington as necessary to counter narcotic trafficking and enforce sanction.
Maritime Interventions Draw Legal Scrutiny
Independent expert—including those associated with the United Nations. They have sharply criticized these actions:
UN human rights experts called the strikes “extrajudicial executions” and violations of international law, asserting that lethal force against vessels in international waters lacked legal justification under the UN Charter and the law of the sea.
A group of UN experts condemned the U.S. partial maritime blockade of Venezuela as an illegal use of force prohibited under Article 2(4) and recognized as armed aggression under the UN’s 1974 Definition of Aggression.
Experts warned that the strikes and blockades “gravely endanger the human right to life” and harm regional stability.
These criticisms are not merely political; they stem from longstanding international legal norms designed to constrain the use of force and protect sovereign equality among nations.
Operation Southern Spear and Oil Seizures
The broader campaign is often referred to by analysts as “Operation Southern Spear.” Involved not only targeting small vessels but also boarding and seizing oil tankers. Including large crude carriers allegedly tied to Venezuelan oil exports. Some of these vessels were seized in international waters after being sanctioned for purported links to illicit networks.
The U.S. also declareds a blockade of sanctioned oil tanker entering or leaving Venezuela and deployed military force in the Caribbean to enforce it.
In response, Venezuela’s National Assembly passed domestics legislation criminalizing action perceived as piracy or blockade and invoked international treaty, including the UN Charter and Geneva Convention, to defends it maritime right.
A Question of Consistency: Selective Enforcement of Internationals Laws
One core themes from The American Watchdogs analysis is the danger of selective enforcements of legals norms: punishing adversaries for violating internationals laws while justifying similar action by one own state.
This dynamic play out starkly in the U.S. treatment of Russia versus Venezuela:
Russia’s invasions of Ukraine has been wide condemned as an illegals use of force and a violation of the UN Charter prohibition against territorial aggressions.
At the same time, legal expert argue U.S. maritime strike and blockade near Venezuela may exceed lawful limit, potentially violating the same Charters provision.
The heart of the concern is not whether motives are legitimate—U.S. officials cite counter-drug and sanctions enforcement. But whether legal rule are being interpreted differently for powerful state and their allie versus rival.
Critic argue that equating narco trafficking with armed military threat stretche legals definition and risk normalizing the uses of forces outside establisheds international laws boundarie.
Implication for Regional Security and Global Norm
The Venezuelan example highlight how selective enforcement and unilateral action can have wider consequences:
Sovereignty Under Pressure
Latin American nation including Brazil Bolivia, and Chile have publicly stressed respect for sovereignty and international laws, warning that foreign military action risks destabilizing regional peaces.
Risk of Broader Conflict
Escalations coulds occur if maritime intervention are perceived as infringing on territorials integrity especially in a contexts where Venezuela has mobilized large militia forces and declare heightened defense posture.
Erosion of Legal Authority
As one legal commentator observeds, when powerful nation bends international laws to suit strategic goal, it weaken the moral authority to object when similar conducts is used by other including state like China or Russia in other context.
Credibility of Global Institutions
The UN Charters and related legal framework function effectively only when compliance is broadly respect. If permanent member of the Security Council are seen as acting outside these norm, it undercuts the legitimacy of the entire international legal systems.
The Rule of Law: A Principle at Risk
At it cores the debate over Venezuela and the U.S. broader foreign policy is a debate about the rule of laws. This concept refers not only to written legal rule but also to the fair impartial, and consistent enforcement of those rules.
According to the Watch Dog article democracie risk losing moral authority if they selectively enforce legal standards applying them strictly to rival while relaxing them for their own actions.
This risk is particularly acute when the actions involve the use of force. The UN Charter entrusts only certain legitimate circumstances for forceful measures: self-defense against an armed attack or multilateral authorization via the Security Council.
Unilateral blockades and strikes based on domestic policy objectives—such as enforcing sanctions or countering narcotics trafficking—may fall outside these narrowly defined legal exceptions, according to many international lawyers.
International Reactions and Next Steps
The international community reaction reflect deep divide:
UN human right expert and Geneva based officials have called for restraint and emphasized adherence to the UN Charter in all maritime security operation.
Latin American government have stressed sovereignty and criticized military intervention absent UN authorization.
Rights group and legal scholar argue the U.S. must align it enforcement measures with international law to maintain credibility and prevent escalation.
In the word of UN official “maritime security cannot be separated from respect for international law and effort to counter illicit activity must be conducted within legal framework that protect fundamental human right.
Conclusion: Law, Power, and Global Order
The unfolding situations around Venezuela’s maritime trades, oil tanker, and military strike underscore a deeper challenge in international relations: ensuring that powerful states abide by the same legal standards they expect others to observe.
The American Watchdog analysis serves as a cautionary tale about ignoring or selectively enforcing. The rule of law can weaken global norms, endanger civilians, and erode democratic legitimacy both at home and abroad.
As debate over the lawfulness of U.S. actions continue in legal forums, at the United Nations, and in capitals around the world, the stakes are high. If the international community is unable to uphold basic legal principles equitably. The very foundation of the post-war legal order grounded in the United Nations Charter—may face its most serious test yet.
