Columnist Thiago Amparo argues that, despite Nicolás Maduro's human rights violations, the illegality of the US intervention in Venezuela undermines global security by disregarding international law. He warns of risks in ignoring norms like territorial integrity and head-of-state immunity. The opinion highlights US hypocrisy in similar cases.
In a column published in Folha de S.Paulo on January 7, 2026, lawyer and professor Thiago Amparo questions the relevance of international law amid the illegal US action in Venezuela. "It is not necessary to like Maduro or the serious human rights violations he perpetrated in his country to sustain that the illegality of the US action in Venezuela makes the world less safe," writes Amparo.
Amparo illustrates his argument with hypothetical scenarios: the American invasion of Greenland for security reasons, Vladimir Putin's capture of Volodymyr Zelensky, China's control over Taiwan, or France's intervention in the Legal Amazon to combat drug trafficking. These examples emphasize principles like the prohibition of force, except in self-defense or with UN Security Council approval.
The author criticizes disdain for international law, which, he says, benefits the strongest and avoids the "law of the strongest." He points to US contradictions: under Joe Biden, they granted immunity to the Saudi dictator accused of ordering a journalist's murder; under Donald Trump, they pardoned Honduras' former president for narcotrafficking the previous month. Amparo concludes that imperialism persists in the Americas, describing it as extractive economic and territorial control for self-benefit.
The piece reinforces that, ineffective in crises, international law still distinguishes legitimate actions from abuses, promoted by the states that created it.
