-
Michael J. Tyler
- January 7, 2026
Opinion: USA Force Over Dialogue – A Breach of international Law?
By Michael J. Tyler
Introduction
The role of the United States in international affairs has long been debated with respect to whether it privileges coercive power over mediation and diplomatic engagement. Historically, the United States has combined both hard and soft power instruments. However, recent actions under President Donald Trump, particularly in 2025 and early 2026, have renewed scrutiny of whether Washington relies excessively on force and threats of force, rather than dialogue and negotiation, in addressing issues that involve other sovereign states.
Venezuela
A striking recent example is the United States military operation in Venezuela in early January 2026, in which U.S. forces carried out air strikes and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. The Trump administration has described the operation as a law enforcement action targeting “narco-terrorism”; nonetheless, it is widely perceived internationally as a military intervention in another country’s internal political affairs. Leaders of Brazil, Mexico, China, and other countries condemned the operation as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law, noting the absence of United Nations Security Council authorisation or Venezuelan consent for such a use of force. Critics argue this action contravenes Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against a state’s territorial integrity or political independence except in self‑defence or with Security Council approval. The United Nations Secretary‑General and several member states raised strong objections at an emergency Security Council session, emphasising that the intervention undermines key principles of the international legal order.
Threats of Force
President Trump’s rhetoric following the Venezuela action further illustrates the current tilt towards coercion over mediation. In statements shortly after the operation, he openly threatened potential future actions against a range of countries including Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, Iran and Greenland, saying “nobody can stop us” in advancing U.S. strategic interests. These threats alarmed regional governments and international observers because they conveyed a willingness to resort to force or unilateral measures rather than pursue negotiated solutions.
The situation with Iran is similarly illustrative. In late 2025, Trump made explicit threats to strike Iranian targets if Tehran pursued nuclear capabilities, framing these as necessary for U.S. security. Iranian officials subsequently declared that such threats of force violate the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on ththreat or use of military force against another state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This dispute underscores how hostile rhetoric and military escalations tend to supplant diplomatic channels in addressing long‑standing geopolitical tensions.
Violations of International Law
These developments raise significant issues under international law. The UN Charter, established in 1945 after the Second World War, seeks to prevent unilateral actions that would disrupt global peace and amplify conflict. Article 2(4) obliges all member states to refrain from the threat or use of force in international relations, save in specific circumstances such as self‑defence under Article 51 or when authorised by the Security Council. Absent those conditions, any use of force constitutes a breach of the Charter’s basic principles. The reported U.S. actions in Venezuela and threats towards other states lack clear justification under these recognised legal bases, prompting criticism that they erode respect for the rule‑based international order.
From the perspective of sovereignty and autonomy, these trends indicate a troubling pattern. Sovereignty, as a core principle of modern international law, protects a state’s right to self‑governance without external interference. The overt use of military force or veiled threats against other nations inherently challenges that autonomy. When a powerful state like the United States adopts a strategy that emphasises coercion, other states may respond defensively or escalate tensions, making peaceful resolution through mediation increasingly difficult.
Critics also contend that an overreliance on force produces counterproductive outcomes. They argue that coercion can harden resistance among targeted states, derail opportunities for negotiated settlements, and weaken international institutions that are essential for managing complex disputes. Moreover, unilateral actions by powerful nations tend to invite reciprocal measures from other states, undermining long‑term stability and cooperation.
In contrast, effective mediation requires investment in diplomatic channels, engagement with multilateral frameworks such as the United Nations, and respect for legal norms that balance state interests with international stability. The recent pattern of U.S. engagement under the Trump administration suggests a preference for high‑profile demonstrations of power over sustained diplomatic efforts when confronting perceived threats or influence campaigns by other states. This approach risks marginalising dialogue, complicating conflict resolution, and weakening global respect for legal constraints on the use of force.
Conclussion
In conclusion, while the United States retains significant diplomatic capacity, its recent actions and rhetoric under President Trump reveal a pronounced inclination towards forceful responses rather than mediation in international relations. Such a disposition not only challenges the UN Charter’s foundational commitments to peace and sovereignty but also undermines the autonomy of other states. For a stable international order, there is an urgent need to recalibrate policy towards robust dialogue and adherence to agreed legal norms, reaffirming that negotiation and legal processes remain central to resolving disputes between nations.
