In international debates surrounding Venezuela, concepts such as sovereignty, non-intervention, and self-determination are often invoked as definitive arguments. However, a rigorous reading of contemporary international law requires addressing a fundamental question: are these principles meant to protect governments in the abstract, or the people living under their authority?
State sovereignty is not an end in itself. Within the framework of modern international law, its legitimacy is conditioned upon the fulfillment of minimum obligations toward the population, particularly the effective respect for human rights. When a State systematically exercises power against its own people—through repression, the dismantling of democratic guarantees, political persecution, or institutional collapse—sovereignty ceases to function as an absolute legal shield.
For decades, the international legal order has recognized that certain fundamental rights—such as the right to life, human dignity, and the self-determination of peoples—cannot be indefinitely subordinated to the will of a regime. In contexts where there are no free elections, no independent press, and no autonomous judiciary, demanding that a population “resolve its situation internally” may, in practice, amount to perpetuating suffering.
Discussing international intervention does not imply justifying any action or disregarding the serious risks associated with the use of force. International law itself establishes clear limits: legality, proportionality, humanitarian purpose, and the protection of the civilian population. Not every intervention is legitimate. But neither is systematic inaction in the face of grave and ongoing human rights violations.
International law was not created to shield governments from their own populations. It was designed to establish responsibility and limits on the exercise of state power when such power is used in ways incompatible with human dignity. Selectively invoking legal principles to justify indifference ultimately strips the law of its essential function: serving as an instrument of justice.
Reflecting on the Venezuelan case from this perspective does not entail taking a political position or endorsing any ideological agenda. It simply reaffirms a core principle of the international legal order: no State has the right to destroy its own people in the name of sovereignty.
Editorial Note
This article constitutes a general legal reflection grounded in international law and human rights principles. It does not seek to support, justify, or condemn specific governments, political actors, or geopolitical strategies. Its purpose is strictly academic and editorial, aimed at analyzing the scope, limits, and role of international law in situations involving serious and sustained harm to human dignity.