UNITED NATIONS: The United Nations Security Council will hold an emergency session on Monday amid mounting international alarm over the United States’ military action in Venezuela and concerns that the crisis has now moved beyond bilateral tensions.

On Saturday, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that the crisis in Venezuela could undermine the foundations of international law by setting a “dangerous precedent“ for similar actions in the near future.

The meeting was requested by Colombia and supported by China and the Russian Federation, with Venezuela also formally appealing to the Council. According to the Council presidency, the session will be held under the agenda item “Threats to International Peace and Security,” and the secretary general is expected to brief the members.

In a statement issued through his spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, Secretary General Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed by the recent escalation in Venezuela, culminating with today’s (Saturday) United States military action in the country, which has potential worrying implications for the region.”

The statement added: “Independently of the situation in Venezuela, these developments constitute a dangerous precedent.“

“The secretary general continues to emphasise the importance of full respect — by all — of international law, including the UN Charter,” Dujarric said. “He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”

Beyond bilateral tensions

The decision to convene the Council reflects a growing view among several UN members that the crisis has moved beyond bilateral tensions and now poses broader risks to regional stability and the international system itself.

The US operation, carried out overnight on Saturday, marks the most direct American military intervention in Latin America in decades. Washington has framed the action as a decisive move against an authoritarian leader accused of narco-terrorism and criminal activity.

US President Donald Trump publicly confirmed the operation, adding that the United States would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” signalling an interim American role in Venezuela’s governance.

For many governments, however, the manner of Maduro’s removal — rather than his record — lies at the heart of the controversy.

The secretary-general’s office has stressed that even severe political crises do not negate the legal restraints imposed by the UN Charter.

“Full respect — by all — of international law” remains essential, Dujarric said, warning that departures from those principles weaken the rules-based international order.

Venezuela has sharply condemned the US action, describing it as a violation of sovereignty and an act of aggression. In a letter to the Security Council, Venezuela’s UN ambassador Samuel Moncada wrote that the operation amounted to “a colonial war aimed at destroying our republican form of government, freely chosen by our people,” and at imposing “a puppet government that allows the plundering of our natural resources, including the world’s largest oil reserves.”

Moncada cited the UN Charter directly, recalling that it states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

China and Russia have echoed those concerns in unusually blunt language. China’s foreign ministry said it was “deeply shocked and strongly condemns the use of force by the US against a sovereign country and the use of force against the president of a country.” It added that China “firmly opposes such hegemonic behaviour by the US, which seriously violates international law, violates Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threatens peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean,” and called on Washington to “abide by international law and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.”

Russia’s foreign ministry described the operation as an act of aggression. “This morning, the United States committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela,” it said, adding that “the pretexts used to justify such actions are unfounded.” Moscow warned that Latin America must remain “a zone of peace” and insisted that Venezuela be allowed “to determine its own destiny without any destructive, let alone military, interference from outside.”

Both Beijing and Moscow have stressed that their objections are rooted not in support for Maduro personally, but in the defence of what they describe as core principles of international law.

Reactions across Latin America have been shaped by a long history of external intervention. While some governments have welcomed Maduro’s removal as the end of a repressive era, others have warned that the US action risks renewed instability. Colombia, which requested the Council meeting, has highlighted concerns about border security and possible displacement.

At the legal level, the episode has revived debates about the limits of unilateral action. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires member states to refrain from the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. Critics argue that neither condition clearly applies in this case, and that criminal indictments or law-enforcement objectives do not constitute a recognised legal basis for military intervention.

The concern articulated by Guterres and echoed by several Council members is that normalising such actions could erode the already fragile consensus around international law. If powerful states are seen as free to remove foreign leaders by force without multilateral approval, diplomats warn that the principle of sovereign equality risks being hollowed out.

Expected positions inside the council

Inside the Council chamber, diplomats expect sharp divisions that mirror public statements already on record. The UN Secretariat is likely to reiterate the secretary general’s warning that the situation “constitutes a dangerous precedent” and that “full respect — by all — of international law, including the UN Charter” remains essential.

China is expected to repeat its position that the use of force against Venezuela “seriously violates international law” and threatens regional peace, while Russia is expected to maintain that the action amounts to “armed aggression” and that Latin America must remain “a zone of peace.”

Venezuela is likely to press its argument that the operation violated the Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and amounted to a “colonial war.” The United States, for its part, is expected to defend the operation on security and criminal grounds, while opposing any Council outcome that characterises the action as unlawful.

Historical parallels and legal context

The debate has revived memories of earlier unilateral interventions that divided the Security Council, including Panama in 1989 and Iraq in 2003, where legality, legitimacy and precedent became central points of contention. In each case, opponents argued that bypassing the Council weakened the collective security framework, while supporters argued that exceptional circumstances justified exceptional measures.

What distinguishes the current case, diplomats note, is the explicit removal and detention of a sitting head of state, raising questions about whether international law is being reshaped by practice rather than consensus. For critics, the concern is that repeated departures from the UN Charter restraints may gradually normalise actions once considered extraordinary.

The Security Council meeting is therefore expected to do little to bridge differences, but much to place competing interpretations on the record. Any resolution critical of the United States is likely to face a veto, limiting formal outcomes. Still, diplomats say the debate itself matters, as it will shape how this episode is cited in future crises.

Beyond New York, Venezuela faces an uncertain transition. Maduro’s capture by the US has created a political vacuum, and questions remain about governance, legitimacy and public consent. Regional governments are watching closely for humanitarian fallout and renewed migration pressures.

In that sense, the crisis is no longer only about Venezuela or the United States. It has become a test of whether the post-war system designed to restrain the use of force can still command respect — or whether, as several diplomats fear, it is steadily being eroded by unilateral action justified by power and expediency.