Ricardo F. Morín
Ligadura (Binding)
Watercolor and ink with incised lines on cardboard
8 × 10 in. (20.3 × 25.4 cm)
2005
The United States does not cease to be bound by law when it acquires the power to determine what another country may do. Its officials require authority under American law. The State remains subject to its international obligations. Neither requirement is satisfied merely because the government affected by American power agrees to the resulting arrangement.
Venezuelan constitutional authority and American legal responsibility are distinct questions. The first concerns the competence to grant rights over the Republic’s wealth. The second concerns the means by which the United States obtained those rights and the authority under which its officials acted. An American contract cannot supply a missing Venezuelan competence. Venezuelan governmental consent cannot supply a missing American power or excuse a breach of an international obligation binding the United States.
The distinction was already present before the January intervention. On December 23, 2025, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel advised that the President could order military personnel to assist in removing Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela for prosecution in the United States. The memorandum expressly addressed domestic law. Its opening conclusion depended on the national interests served and on the anticipated force remaining below the level of war in the constitutional sense. [1]
The opinion supplied the executive branch’s interpretation of presidential authority for the proposed operation. Congressional authorization and judicial review remain separate sources of constitutional judgment. Each subsequent exercise of American power over Venezuela’s government, revenues, or petroleum requires its own legal basis.
The Constitution assigns Congress the power to declare war and makes the President Commander in Chief. The disputed boundary between those powers cannot be settled by the President’s description of his own conduct. Nor does an executive opinion addressing that boundary determine whether another State’s sovereignty may lawfully be violated. [2]
On January 4, Ambassador Mike Waltz publicly invoked self-defense under Article 51. [3] On January 5, he told the Security Council that the United States had conducted a law-enforcement operation with military assistance. He invoked the indictments against Maduro and Cilia Flores, the President’s responsibility to protect Americans, and Maduro’s lack of legitimacy. He also denied that the United States was occupying Venezuela. [4]
An indictment authorizes proceedings within a legal system. It does not, by itself, authorize the use of armed force within another State. The United Nations Charter prohibits force against territorial integrity or political independence. The pertinent grounds for departing from that prohibition include Security Council authorization and self-defense; valid territorial consent presents a separate inquiry. Article 51 identifies an armed attack as the condition for the inherent right it preserves. [5]
The Administration must explain how those justifications fit together and establish the conditions required by each. A prosecutorial purpose does not itself satisfy the international requirements for self-defense; invoking self-defense does not itself establish domestic authority for the operation. The Administration must identify the armed attack relied upon and explain the necessity and proportionality of its response. Article 51 also requires immediate reporting of self-defense measures to the Council. [5]
On January 6, the United Nations Human Rights Office rejected unilateral military intervention as a means of obtaining accountability for Venezuela’s human-rights violations and described the operation as undermining the prohibition on force. On January 13, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights likewise insisted on respect for sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibitions on aggression and force, while reiterating its findings concerning the Maduro government’s repression. [6] [7]
Those institutional assessments identify obligations that remain binding when the target government commits abuses. If the Administration relies instead on an invitation to intervene, it must identify valid consent given before the operation and establish that its forces acted within that consent. Recognition of a preferred authority cannot stand in for the consent itself. [8]
The War Powers Resolution subjects presidential military action to reporting and termination requirements. [9] On January 14, the Senate sustained a point of order against the privileged status of S.J.Res. 98, a measure directing the removal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities within or against Venezuela. Senators divided fifty to fifty; the Vice President voted in the affirmative. [10]
That vote blocked the measure’s progress and left the statutory question unresolved. Congress grants authority through law. A defeated effort to restrain the President records a political failure to impose restraint, rather than an affirmative grant of the disputed power.
The financial arrangements raise their own questions of American authority.
Executive Order 14373, issued on January 9, identifies specified Venezuelan natural-resource revenues as Venezuelan sovereign property and describes American possession as custodial. Yet it assigns the Secretary of State responsibility for determining the public, governmental, or diplomatic purposes for which those funds may be disbursed, and directs Treasury to follow the Secretary’s instructions. [11]
The order invokes the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Section 1702(a)(1)(B) authorizes extensive regulation of foreign-property transactions. Section 1702(a)(1)(C) separately permits confiscation when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked, subject to a presidential determination connecting the foreign owner to those hostilities or attacks. The statute distinguishes transaction control from vesting ownership for American benefit. [12]
The Administration must account for its conduct under that distinction. Its January order claims custody while assigning American officials decisions over the use of Venezuelan wealth. Any later acquisition of ownership requires authority for that acquisition. Powers to control transactions cannot simply be treated as powers to take property for American benefit. [11] [12]
Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, and Sheldon Whitehouse addressed precisely the problem of control without ownership in a letter dated September 16 and released the following day. Citing public reporting, they referred to at least $13 billion in Venezuelan oil revenues deposited in a Treasury custody account. They asked what constitutional or statutory constraints govern funds that the United States does not own but whose use its officials control. [13]
The senators requested account statements, transaction records, Venezuelan spending requests, and safeguards against improper disbursements. Their October 5 response deadline remained open on September 30. The letter places the Administration under a formal demand to account for its authority and conduct. [13] The Administration’s own order classifies those funds as Venezuelan sovereign property held in American custody. On that premise, the Administration must account for the authority by which American officials determine their use. [11]
The petroleum arrangement adds a further act requiring authority. On August 31, the White House announced that North American Blue Energy Partners had granted the Office of Strategic Capital a 35 percent equity interest in its corporate parent. It also announced preferential purchasing rights and powers over corporate governance. The fact sheet emphasized that the American interest came at no cost to the taxpayer. [14]
Acceptance, administration, and disposition of that interest each require legal authority. A zero acquisition price answers a question about cost, while leaving the agency’s power to acquire the asset to be demonstrated. Any proceeds received for the United States must also be accounted for under federal law governing public receipts and expenditures. [15]
A Congressional Research Service report updated September 8 describes the Office of Strategic Capital’s capital-assistance program in terms of loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance. It separately identifies proposed legislation that would authorize certain equity investments. [16]
The Administration must therefore identify the particular legal basis for the NABEP interest. The operative instrument and the authority invoked would permit assessment of whether the transaction falls within an existing power and satisfies its conditions. A press announcement leaves that statutory account incomplete.
American statutory authority, even if established, would answer only the domestic question. International law determines separately whether the United States has breached an obligation owed outside its own legal order. Article 3 of the International Law Commission’s articles on State responsibility expresses the distinction: an act’s treatment as lawful under internal law does not determine its international lawfulness. [17]
The Charter of the Organization of American States addresses the acquisition of advantage with particular precision. Article 19 prohibits direct and indirect intervention. Article 20 prohibits economic or political coercion intended to force another State’s sovereign will and obtain advantages. Article 21 rejects recognition of territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained through force or other coercive means. [18]
These provisions subject the relation between pressure and benefit to law. Coercive intervention can occur without military occupation, and a private company can serve as the vehicle through which governmental pressure secures an advantage.
The documented sequence is consequently material: American force removed the president; an American order placed decisions over Venezuelan revenues under American supervision; the Administration then announced enduring American interests in petroleum production and corporate governance. In April, President Trump had already described the economic relationship as resembling a joint venture and stated that the attack had paid for itself many times over. [4] [11] [14] [19]
The sequence supports an inference connecting intervention to economic advantage. A finding of prohibited coercion must establish how American pressure constrained Venezuela’s sovereign choice and contributed to obtaining the particular rights. The President’s own description supplies evidence of that connection and requires the military action and economic return to be examined together.
The Administration’s reliance on governmental agreement must therefore be examined within the circumstances in which that agreement was obtained. Consent is relevant. Its existence on an instrument cannot, without examination, dispose of a claim that force or coercion procured it.
The corporate structure requires equal precision. The White House distinguishes its agreement with NABEP, governed by American law, from the company’s Venezuelan concessions, governed by Venezuelan legislation. [14] A contract with a private corporation is not automatically a treaty between States. Any associated intergovernmental commitments must be identified before rules governing treaty validity are applied.
Where the instrument is a treaty, the rule expressed in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention addresses consent procured through unlawful threats or force. The United States’ non-ratification requires attention to the applicable customary rule. The prior question about American conduct nevertheless remains direct: did the United States use prohibited force or coercion to obtain the advantages it now claims? [20] [21]
American officials remain answerable for their own acts throughout that corporate structure. Their decisions to direct revenues, acquire interests, and exercise governmental powers are conduct of the United States. Attribution of additional corporate conduct requires further evidence, but the Administration’s own participation is already the subject of its announcements. [17]
Permanent sovereignty over natural resources supplies another applicable principle. Its legal standing does not depend solely on the status of a General Assembly declaration. The International Court of Justice has recognized it as a principle of customary international law, expressly reaffirming that character in its advisory opinion of July 19, 2024. [22]
Its application requires attention to the policy and conduct established by the evidence. Here the Administration has expressly announced a policy of securing American benefit from Venezuelan resources. A Venezuelan private beneficiary and an American governmental beneficiary can participate in the same transaction without either representing the sovereign people whose resources give it value.
Occupation would impose additional obligations if the facts establish it. Under the Hague Regulations, the relevant condition is effective authority over territory by hostile armed forces. Financial supervision and political predominance alone do not establish that condition. An American denial does not disprove it. The inquiry must concern the authority actually exercised over particular territory during the relevant period. [23]
If occupation is established, its law limits the occupant’s administration of public property and natural resources. The occupant does not acquire sovereignty. Its powers are temporary, and the rules governing usufruct require preservation of the capital of the resources administered. The International Court of Justice has reiterated those limits. [22] [23]
The prohibitions on unlawful force and coercive intervention apply independently of that territorial classification. Responsibility for the intervention and the advantages obtained through it can therefore be examined while the evidence concerning occupation remains incomplete.
The Administration owes a specific account: the authority for its equity interest, the rules governing its directions over sovereign revenues, and the legal justification for the force and pressure through which the announced advantages were obtained. The operative instruments and transaction records are necessary to test that account. Their absence leaves the Administration’s claims of lawful authority unsubstantiated at precisely the points where its conduct requires explanation.
Congressional oversight, statutory limits, and international obligations address the conduct from different legal positions. Enforcement may remain contested and adjudication incomplete. The Administration nevertheless bears the burden of identifying the powers it exercises and answering the obligations its conduct engages.
The Administration has announced what the United States obtained. It has not thereby established what American law authorized its officials to acquire or what international law permitted the United States to exact.
The law governing that conduct is not a condition the United States may impose on Venezuela. It is an obligation the United States must meet itself.
Ricardo F. Morín
September 30, 2026
Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
Notes
[1] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “Proposed War Department Operation to Support Law Enforcement Efforts in Venezuela,” December 23, 2025, especially pp. 1–2; publicly released in redacted form.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1423306/dl
[2] Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. Congress.gov, Constitution Annotated, 2024 Supplement, discussion of presidential and congressional war powers.
[3] Ambassador Mike Waltz, interview on Fox News Sunday Morning Futures, January 4, 2026, invoking Article 51; broadcaster’s report and embedded interview. This public statement is distinct from a communication to the Security Council reporting measures taken in self-defense.
[4] United Nations Security Council, S/PV.10085, January 5, 2026, pp. 13–14, statement of Ambassador Mike Waltz.
[5] Charter of the United Nations, Articles 2(4), 39–42, and 51. The record reviewed for this essay does not establish whether the United States submitted an Article 51 communication reporting the January operation. No finding of failure to report is made.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
[6] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, statement by spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani on the United States intervention in Venezuela, January 6, 2026; official UN Geneva transcript.
[7] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “IACHR expresses concern over armed incursion in Venezuela, calls for respect for international law, and the end of repression,” January 13, 2026.
https://www.oas.org/en/IACHR/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2026/007.asp
[8] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001, Article 20 and its commentary, concerning valid consent, its limits, and consent given before the act. The commentary supplies the consent framework, not a determination of which Venezuelan authority could invite intervention. A claim of invitation by a recognized authority lacking effective control requires examination of that authority’s international capacity, the timing and scope of its consent, and the conduct authorized. Recognition alone does not resolve those questions.
[9] War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1543(a)(1), 1544(b), and 1547. The sixty-day rule concerns the report submitted or required under § 1543(a)(1); the additional thirty-day period requires the presidential determination specified in § 1544(b). Applying the clock requires establishing when a report was submitted or required and whether the relevant use of forces continued. Continuing financial supervision is not itself continuing military hostilities.
[10] United States Senate, Roll Call Vote No. 9, 119th Congress, Second Session, January 14, 2026, point of order concerning the privileged status of S.J.Res. 98.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1192/vote_119_2_00009.htm
[11] Executive Order 14373, “Safeguarding Venezuelan Oil Revenue for the Good of the American and Venezuelan People,” January 9, 2026, especially Sections 4(a), 4(b), 4(c)(ii), and 5(a)(ii).
[12] International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1702, especially § 1702(a)(1)(B)–(C). The armed-hostilities condition in subsection (C) is distinct from the constitutional-war threshold discussed by OLC. Subsection (C) also requires a presidential determination that the foreign owner planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in the relevant hostilities or attack. Acquisition of a corporate interest requires identification of its own legal basis; it is not classified here as confiscation merely because the acquirer is governmental.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:50%20section:1702%20edition:prelim)
[13] Senators Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, and Sheldon Whitehouse, letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, dated September 16, 2026, released September 17, 2026, pp. 1–3. The committee release and download title bear the September 17 date; the letter itself bears September 16.
[14] The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Announces Historic Oil Agreement to Secure American Energy Dominance and Drive Venezuela’s Economic Recovery,” August 31, 2026.
[15] Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7; Miscellaneous Receipts Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b). Section 3302(b) generally requires deposit of money received for the Government, subject to applicable statutory exceptions. The Appropriations Clause governs withdrawals from the Treasury. Venezuelan sovereign funds held in custody are not automatically American public receipts or appropriations. Receipts accruing to an American governmental equity interest require separate classification.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C7-2/ALDE_00013189
[16] Congressional Research Service, “Office of Strategic Capital: Overview and Considerations,” IF13215, updated September 8, 2026, sections on the capital-assistance pilot program and issues for Congress. Public reproduction of the CRS report.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF13215.html
[17] International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, especially Articles 2–5, 8, and 20; annexed to General Assembly Resolution 56/83. These articles are not a treaty; many provisions reflect customary law. Article 4 concerns State organs. Article 5 requires legal empowerment to exercise governmental authority and conduct in that capacity; ordinary corporate governance rights do not themselves establish such delegation. Article 8 concerns particular conduct under State instructions, direction, or control. State equity alone does not attribute all corporate conduct.
[18] Charter of the Organization of American States, Articles 19–23.
https://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-41_charter_OAS.asp
[19] GovInfo, “Remarks During a Document Signing Ceremony and an Exchange With Reporters,” April 30, 2026, p. 8.
[20] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Articles 2(1)(a), 46, and 52. Article 46 provides a separate, narrow connection between internal competence and international validity: the violation must concern a fundamental internal rule governing treaty-making competence and be manifest. The expiry of a temporary presidential-substitution period does not by itself establish those conditions or invalidate every subsequent act. That issue remains distinct from responsibility for American force or coercion.
[21] U.S. Department of State, “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,” archived treaty-law guidance on the United States’ signature, non-ratification, and recognition of customary treaty law.
https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70139.htm
[22] International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory Opinion, July 19, 2024, paragraphs 124–125, 133, and 240; reproduced in UN document A/78/968. The opinion discusses Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, December 19, 2005, paragraph 244. In the 2005 judgment, the Court declined to apply permanent sovereignty to the looting and exploitation there considered. Paragraph 125 of the 2024 opinion distinguishes the absence of credible evidence of a governmental exploitation policy in that case from exploitation pursued as governmental policy contrary to occupation-law duties. The principle is therefore neither categorically inapplicable to occupation nor a substitute for establishing the relevant facts and obligations.
[23] International Committee of the Red Cross, “Occupation and international humanitarian law,” August 4, 2004, especially the discussion of Hague Regulations Articles 42 and 55 and the factual test for occupation.
https://www.icrc.org/en/article/occupation-international-humanitarian-law-questions
