Interventionist Policy of the United States during the Trump Administration and the Violation of State Sovereignty: A Legal Study of the Non-Military Kidnapping Plot against the President of Venezuela

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate professor, department of international relations, Allameh Tabataba'i university, Tehran. Iran

10.22091/ijicl.2026.15154.1230

Abstract

State sovereignty constitutes one of the foundational principles of public international law, safeguarding political independence and prohibiting external interference in the internal affairs of states. The disclosure of an alleged plan by the United States, during the Trump administration, to kidnap the President of Venezuela represents a contemporary manifestation of coercive conduct carried out through ostensibly non-military means. Situated within the broader context of escalating tensions between the United States and Venezuela and closely connected to U.S. energy, economic, and security interests in Latin America, this case raises significant legal questions concerning the scope of the principle of non-intervention and the applicability of international legal norms to covert and extraterritorial operations.

The central objective of this study is to examine the legal nature of the alleged non-military kidnapping plot and to assess how such conduct amounts to a violation of state sovereignty and political independence. Adopting a descriptive–analytical methodology, the article evaluates the legality of the alleged action in light of the United Nations Charter, relevant rules of customary international law, the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, and the principles governing international state responsibility.

The findings indicate that the kidnapping or attempted kidnapping of political leaders, even outside the context of armed conflict and in the absence of overt military force, entails an inherently coercive and interventionist character. Such conduct constitutes a serious breach of state sovereignty, political independence, and the international legal protections afforded to heads of state, thereby triggering the international responsibility of the acting state. The article concludes that the normalization of covert non-military coercive measures represents a substantial threat to the integrity of the international legal order and highlights the urgent need to reinforce legal accountability mechanisms in order to safeguard the principle of state sovereignty in contemporary international relations.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 26 May 2026

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics