Emergency Meeting of the UN Security Council on the US–Venezuela Conflict: possible outcomes

An emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), composed of 15 member states including the United States (US) as a permanent member, will be convened today following the US’s large-scale military assault on Venezuela and the overthrow of President Nicolás Maduro through the abduction of him and his wife. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has described this attack and abduction as “a dangerous precedent” for similar actions in the future.

The meeting was requested by Colombia and supported by China and Russia, while Venezuela itself formally appealed to the UNSC to urgently deliberate on the matter. According to the President of the Security Council, the session will be held under the agenda item “Threats to International Peace and Security” pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which covers “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter, in respect of “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression,” represents one of the most powerful and binding authorities of the UNSC, spanning Articles 39 to 51. Article 39 empowers the Council to determine whether a threat to peace, a breach of peace, or an act of aggression exists in any situation—in this case, referring to Venezuela. If such a determination is made, the Council must recommend or decide upon measures in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 to maintain or restore international peace and security through binding resolutions. Article 41 authorizes measures not involving armed force, while Article 42 permits military action if necessary.

Resolutions adopted under Chapter VII are legally binding on all 193 UN member states, provided they are not vetoed by any of the five permanent members—the US, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. This binding nature is affirmed under Article 25 of the Charter and reinforced by the International Court of Justice in the case regarding the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16, known as the Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971) case.

Article 41 allows the UNSC to impose measures such as complete or partial disruption of economic relations (economic sanctions), suspension of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other communication services, and severance of diplomatic relations.

For example, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2385 (14 November 2017) extended and modified arms embargoes on Somalia and Eritrea, targeting Al-Shabaab’s financing through charcoal trade and natural resource exploitation. Moreover, the UNSC adopted Resolution 418 (4 November 1977) where it imposed a mandatory arms embargo on South Africa to oppose apartheid.

If non-military measures prove inadequate, Article 42 authorizes military action, including demonstrations, blockades, and operations by air, sea, or land forces to restore peace and security. For instance, following the Arab Spring protests in Libya, Resolution 1973 (17 March 2011) whereby it authorized the use of force, establishing a no-fly zone and permitting “all necessary measures” short of foreign occupation to protect civilians during the Libyan Civil War.

It must be noted that the US is directly involved in the large-scale attack on Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Moreover, as a permanent member of the UNSC, the US holds veto power, enabling it to block any proposed resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Therefore, it is highly probable that any resolution proposed by the UNSC regarding this matter will be vetoed outright by the US, given its direct involvement. Should this occur, no binding action can be taken against the US under the Charter, leaving the Council powerless to impose measures on the US for its actions in Venezuela.