Democracy depends on the rule of law — especially when force is used. For democratic governments, how power is exercised matters just as much as why it is used. Consistency with international law isn’t optional; it’s essential to democratic legitimacy.
Two recent examples show this clearly. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been widely denounced as illegal under international law and in violation of the United Nations Charter. In contrast, U.S. military actions near Venezuela in 2025 — described by U.S. officials as counter-drug operations and enforcement of sanctions — have drawn criticism from legal experts who argue they may violate the same legal norms.
These situations are not identical. Russia invaded, occupied, and annexed parts of Ukraine. The United States has not invaded Venezuela. But both cases involve powerful states using force near or within resource-rich countries, often justified with security arguments, while legal standards are applied unevenly.
International law is clear. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This rule has been central to international criticism of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, including criticism from the United States.
In Venezuela’s case, the legal issues are contested. In 2025 the United States carried out maritime strikes, seized oil tankers, and enforced a blockade of Venezuelan oil shipments. While U.S. officials argue these steps are lawful enforcement measures, critics contend that the use of force may exceed lawful limits.
The core concern isn’t the motives behind state actions, but the inconsistency in applying international legal standards. When legal rules are enforced against adversaries but relaxed or ignored at home, global norms erode, protections for civilians weaken, and democratic credibility suffers. Former U.S. military lawyers warn that weakening these rules can also put U.S. service members at greater risk.
Authoritarian governments often undermine the rule of law by applying it selectively — invoking legal arguments against critics while ignoring them when inconvenient. Democracies risk losing moral authority if they follow a similar path.
The lesson from Ukraine is straightforward: if international law is to matter, powerful states must apply the same legal standards to themselves that they expect others to uphold.