When the Rule of Law Is Ignored: Lessons from Putin and Trump – Democracy depends on the rule of law — especially when the matter at hand is the use of force. In healthy democratic societies, it isn’t enough to argue that authority was utilized for a worthy reason; how that power is used must be lawful, consistent, and transparent. International law isn’t optional—respecting it is necessary for democratic legitimacy, global order, and the protection of human rights. When the Rule of Law Is Ignored
In recent years, two very different yet legally contentious examples have demonstrated why: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the United States’ growing military actions near Venezuela. While these cases range in scope and context, all pose critical considerations about how powerful states apply—or fail to apply—international legal rules.
Ukraine: A Clear Case of Prohibited Use of Force
The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of the most harshly criticized breaches of international law in recent history. Russia’s decision to invade, occupy, and later attempt to annex Ukrainian territory violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state without Security Council authorization or a legitimate claim to self-defense. This legal framework has constituted the main basis for global criticism of Russia’s activities, particularly from the United States and European nations, and has underpinned sanctions and diplomatic isolation measures against Moscow. When the Rule of Law Is Ignored
Venezuela: A More Contested, But Troubling, Use of Force
Meanwhile, in 2025 and 2026, the United States initiated a series of military measures against Venezuelan vessels and infrastructure that have garnered considerable attention from legal experts, human rights groups, and international countries. When the Rule of Law Is Ignored
Under President Donald Trump’s command, U.S. Marines performed scores of attacks against boats operating in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean—actions Washington claimed as targeting drugs trafficking networks. The U.S. also seized Venezuelan-linked oil vessels on the high seas, sent considerable navy and air assets to the region, and, in a dramatic escalation in January 2026, detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife during a covert operation.
These moves followed a wider pattern of what the U.S. government portrayed as efforts to disrupt drug shipments and impose sanctions. Yet the legal basis for carrying out fatal strikes and marine seizures—especially far beyond U.S. territorial waters—has been questioned vehemently.
Why the Legal Debate Matters
Under international law, the prohibition on the use of force is not a mere guideline—it is a cornerstone of the post-World War II legal order. Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter is unambiguous: nations must “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Exceptions are narrow, typically limited to self-defense following an armed attack under Article 51 or if permitted by the U.N. Security Council.
Critics claim that the U.S.’s naval blockade and military strikes against vessels—even when characterized as counter-narcotics operations—fall outside those restrictions. A whole or partial blockade by military means, many legal academics contend, is itself a use of force that would typically require Security Council consent. The United Nations human rights experts have called the embargo a “illegal use of force” and “armed aggression” when imposed without global authority.
Similarly, fatal strikes on boats at sea, even if suspected of involvement in drug trafficking, raise major problems. International human rights law and customary standards generally prohibit killing someone outside of an armed conflict situation unless there is an imminent threat that warrants self-defense. Many legal analysts say that cartel activity—even if transnational—does not satisfy that threshold, and that using it as justification for military action blurs the boundary between law enforcement and war. When the Rule of Law Is Ignored
Domestically, too, there is dispute about whether U.S. law provides a clear authority for such military operations, given that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) and other legal frameworks were established for very different circumstances and may not cover cross-border anti-drug efforts.
The Core Concern: Consistency and Credibility
These legal disputes are not entirely academic. When a state supports legal rules against an adversary but uses other standards in its own conduct, the foundations of international law can crumble. Norms that once enjoyed broad acceptance risk degradation if they are deployed selectively. For democracies, this inconsistency has specific dangers: it promotes views of double standards, undermines global trust, and, as U.S. military attorneys have cautioned, can increase hazards to service personnel who rely on unambiguous legal mandates.
Authoritarian governments often target legal systems themselves, using law when convenient and rejecting it when inconvenient. Democracies must defend against similar practices. Upholding the rule of law—even when power may enable unilateral action—is crucial to maintaining moral authority and international peace. When the Rule of Law Is Ignored
Beyond Motives: Legal Standards Must Apply Equally
Supporters of the U.S. measures claim that national security and counter-narcotics objectives necessitate a vigorous reaction. Opponents reply that security reasons do not overcome fundamental legal constraints on the use of force. The disagreement underscores a crucial point: motivations matter less in international law than obedience to established principles. Even widely shared concerns—such as combating drug trafficking—do not automatically afford a state the legal right to employ force within or against another sovereign nation lacking strong legal grounds.
The varied worldwide reactions underline this conflict. Many Latin American presidents, European nations, and independent legal bodies have called on all parties to uphold international law, emphasizing diplomatic alternatives and peaceful dispute resolution. At the same time, some have justified the U.S. strategy on security and humanitarian grounds, indicating fundamental divides over how international norms should be interpreted and applied in complex real-world settings. When the Rule of Law Is Ignored
The lesson from the Ukraine case is clear: if international law is to carry any meaning, powerful governments must follow the same legal norms to themselves that they want others to uphold. Inconsistent application not only diminishes the rule of law but undermines the legitimacy of democratic governments that ordinarily support those standards.
In a world of competing interests, rising geopolitical tensions, and evolving security threats, the strength of democratic systems will increasingly be measured not just by the underlying goals they pursue—but by the extent to which they respect and reinforce the legal frameworks that sustain international order. When the Rule of Law Is Ignored
About the Author
