Rule of Law Under Pressure as US Actions Reshape Global Order

In recent weeks, the international community has closely followed a series of US actions in Venezuela, at sea and in discussions surrounding Greenland, Iran and other nations, triggered by statements from US President Trump.

The most striking development came with a US military operation in Venezuela on Saturday 3 January 2026, during which American special forces captured and extracted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The operation was carried out on the grounds of longstanding allegations related to organised crime and drug trafficking, with US authorities stating that the move formed part of broader efforts to enforce sanctions and uphold international law. Later, President Trump alluded, not to democracy being upheld, but to the Latin American country's vast oil reserves.

These developments triggered a chain reaction at international level. The United Nations issued statements, US allies expressed concern, Russia adopted sharper rhetoric and unease grew in Ukraine. For countries such as Luxembourg, whose senior politicians have for decades emphasised the rule of law as the foundation of the international order, these events carry particular significance.

The US operation against Venezuela was accompanied by a broader enforcement campaign at sea, including the more recent seizure of oil tankers linked to Venezuelan oil exports and the tightening of sanctions aimed at restricting the country’s ability to sell crude on international markets. Washington has framed these measures as part of its sanctions regime, arguing that they are necessary to curb illicit activities and uphold international norms.

Venezuelan authorities have strongly rejected this interpretation. Officials in Caracas described the actions as “an act of aggression” and “a violation of national sovereignty”, while the country’s foreign ministry denounced the tanker seizures as “acts amounting to piracy” and accused Washington of bypassing international legal mechanisms. It also appears that US Congress was not advised in advance of the extraction, which is required under the US constitution.

Reactions from other international actors have been notably cautious. Europe's reaction has been comparatively muted: EU officials called for restraint and stressed the need to respect international law, while emphasising dialogue and multilateral solutions rather than unilateral enforcement. France and Germany underlined that sanctions must remain anchored in international law and warned that further escalation risks destabilisation. China, meanwhile, reiterated its opposition to unilateral actions outside the UN framework and stressed the importance of respecting state sovereignty.

At the centre of the debate lies a broader legal question: whether sanctions and unilateral enforcement actions can substitute established international legal processes, or whether they risk weakening the very framework of rules they are intended to protect. Also, where does it put the UN?

Reaction of the UN & International Institutions

The escalation between the United States and Venezuela has prompted strong yet carefully worded reactions from the United Nations, which has warned of broader implications for the international order. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” by the situation, noting that the US military action in Venezuela constituted “a dangerous precedent” with potentially worrying consequences beyond the region.

In a statement issued by his spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, the Secretary-General stressed that “full respect – by all – of international law, including the UN Charter” remained essential, adding that he was “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected”. He called on all parties to engage in “inclusive dialogue” in accordance with international law and human rights.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also urged restraint, stating that “the protection of the people of Venezuela is paramount and must guide any further action”. At the same time, UN human rights investigators warned that alleged abuses by Venezuelan authorities could not justify military intervention that breaches international law.

Echoing these concerns, the President of the UN General Assembly Annalena Baerbock underlined that the UN Charter was not an “optional document” and reminded Member States of their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force. “A peaceful, safe and just world for everyone is only possible if the rule of law prevails instead of might makes right,” she said.

Greenland: When Territorial Questions Become Global

Beyond Venezuela, concerns have also grown in Europe that recent developments could set a dangerous precedent closer to home. The debate over Greenland has resurfaced amid broader questions about unilateral action and respect for international frameworks, raising fears that territorial issues in Europe could increasingly be shaped by power politics rather than legal norms.

Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark with a population of around 60,000, already hosts a significant US military presence. Recent discussions about a possible expansion of American control have therefore drawn particular attention. Responding to such suggestions, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on Sunday 4 January 2026 that “it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland”, adding that “the US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom”.

US President Donald Trump reacted shortly afterwards, reiterating that Greenland remained strategically vital for American security interests and signalling that Washington would continue to pursue what it considers necessary measures to protect them. His comments further fuelled debate over where strategic considerations end and international legal obligations begin.

The exchange has reinforced wider concerns voiced within international institutions that if powerful states begin to sidestep established legal frameworks, the credibility of the UN system itself could be weakened. For smaller territories and states, international law remains a key safeguard, underscoring why adherence to agreed rules is central to maintaining stability in the global order.

Russia and ‘Dialogue’: Familiar Rhetoric

Moscow was quick to condemn the US actions in Venezuela, with senior Russian officials denouncing the operation as illegal and destabilising. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, described the US military action as “unlawful and destabilising”, warning that it undermined international norms and risked further escalation.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry echoed this line, stating that the use of force outside the UN framework “undermines the foundations of international law” and calling for disputes to be resolved through dialogue and established multilateral mechanisms. The rhetoric closely mirrors language Russia has used in response to Western military operations in the past.

At the same time, the statements highlight a longstanding contradiction. Russia itself has repeatedly been accused of bypassing international legal procedures in recent years, most notably in Ukraine, raising questions about the selective application of legal principles by major powers. Moscow’s position is further shaped by its close political and military ties with Venezuela, to which it has supplied weapons and defence equipment over the past decade.

The episode illustrates how competing interpretations of legality, when advanced by powerful states, risk eroding trust in the rules-based international system they claim to defend.

Ukraine: Indirect but Real Consequences

Developments surrounding Venezuela and the broader debate over unilateral action have also been closely followed in Kyiv, where concerns persist about the reliability of international support amid shifting geopolitical priorities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has warned that allowing powerful states to act outside international law risks emboldening “dictators” and weakening global security guarantees.

Ukrainian officials fear that if adherence to the rule of law becomes selective, the credibility of commitments to defend sovereignty may diminish. The perception that international norms can be overridden by force reinforces uncertainty over long-term support for Ukraine as it continues to face pressure from Russia.

For Kyiv, the issue extends beyond the specific cases of Venezuela or Greenland. It touches on whether international law remains a reliable safeguard for states confronting external threats. As Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly argued, when the rule of law is compromised, smaller and medium-sized countries are often the first to bear the consequences.

The events of recent weeks suggest that the global system is entering a phase in which international rules are increasingly being tested. Reactions to the US actions in Venezuela, ranging from alarm to caution, reflect broader concerns about predictability, restraint and the future role of multilateral institutions.

In this context, the Luxembourg government underlined the importance of legal principles in a statement issued on Sunday 4 January 2026. While reiterating its condemnation of human rights abuses committed by the Maduro regime and its lack of recognition of his democratic legitimacy, the government stressed that international law, including the principle of non-use of force and the UN Charter, “must remain the guiding principles”. Luxembourg also called for calm and restraint, emphasising the need for a negotiated and democratic solution led by Venezuelans themselves, in line with the principle of self-determination.

As power politics reassert themselves on multiple fronts, the central question remains whether the rule of law can continue to serve as a shared point of reference. The answer will shape not only the balance of power, but also the level of trust that underpins relations between states in an increasingly uncertain world.