After the US invasion of Venezuela and the arrest and imprisonment of President Nicolas Maduro in the US, world politics has returned to a time of pure colonialism and imperialism. Colonialism itself was illegal. Imperialist actions were inhumane.

Some question whether the current increasing violations of international law are the ‘death of international law’, I call it the ‘death of the civilized nature of states’. Some say ‘the United Nations has failed’, I say ‘states have failed to make the United Nations successful’.

Traditionally, there has been debate about whether international law is true law. This article aims to provide an alternative or critical interpretation of the traditional understanding of such law and politics.

Some scholars have argued that colonialism is not dead and continues to have an impact, while others have argued that global power relations have entered a neo-colonial era. In particular, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the recent US invasion of Venezuela, world politics (rather than moving towards peace and cooperation) is returning to the era of colonialism.

Colonialism was thought to have begun with European overseas expansion in the late 15th century and to have largely ended after World War II during the decolonization movement in the mid-20th century. Both colonialism and imperialism are the control of a weaker country by a powerful country for political, economic, or strategic gain. Colonialism means direct territorial control, while imperialism can be indirect influence without full occupation.

Trump announces colonial control

US President Trump has said that Venezuela is under temporary US control – ‘We will run the country until there is a safe, fair, and just transition. We will not allow anyone else to take over who does not take into account the interests of the Venezuelan people.’

This is a clear statement of colonial control. In addition, President Trump has announced that – ‘The US will rebuild and control Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, with major US oil companies investing billions and using or selling its oil reserves as part of that process.’ This announcement by President Trump is pure evidence of colonialism.

Colonialism is the conquest and control of the lives, land, and natural resources of the people of other countries by a powerful state. The leading scholars who have defined colonialism are the Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said, the British-Indian postcolonial theorist Ania Loomba, and the German historian of world-imperialist history Jürgen Osterhamel.

Loomba defines colonialism in physical and political terms, highlighting the domination of territory, resources, and labor. Edward Said, on the other hand, focuses on the cultural and intellectual mechanisms of domination. While Loomba emphasizes economic and territorial exploitation, Said reveals how power is exercised through ideas, representation, and knowledge.

Together, their perspectives show that colonialism operates both through the physical control of land and resources and through how colonized people are represented and governed or controlled. Jürgen Osterhamel says that colonialism is the process by which colonial rulers make and implement fundamental decisions affecting the lives of colonized peoples in pursuit of interests defined in a distant metropolis.

The death of civilized state nature

US President Trump has accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of being a corrupt dictator. According to Trump, Maduro is involved in narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, electoral fraud and gross human rights violations and has destroyed Venezuela's democracy and economy. Even if these allegations are true, the US does not have the right to attack Venezuela under international law.

The above-mentioned Russian and American illegal attacks are killing the civilized nature of the nation, but international law is alive. Because, international law is defined as the law of civilized nations. When someone breaks the law, he demonstrates the 'unbridled' nature of the nation. US President Donald Trump is illegally attacking Venezuela and Russian President Vladimir Putin is illegally attacking Ukraine, making their nations uncivilized.

The gross violations of international law committed (or to be committed) by elected or unelected governments or heads of state in an authoritarian manner should not be called the death of international law or the death of the United Nations. According to world-renowned international lawyers such as Lassa Oppenheim, Henry Wheaton, John Westlake, Hugo Grotius, Angelotti and Brierley, international law applies to relations between states considered to be ‘civilized’ and aims to regulate diplomacy, war and treaties to ensure peaceful coexistence.

Traditionally, the international community was known as the community of civilized nations. Therefore, international law was defined as the law of civilized nations. Generally, a ‘civilized state’ is understood as an organized and law-abiding state.

But in today’s uncertain times, the concept of civilized nations is rapidly disintegrating. Powerful states are losing their civilized behavior of abiding by international law. Nations are neglecting their duty to respect each other. States are expected to abide by international law, but powerful states seem to be proud of breaking the rules to serve their vested interests at the expense of the global common good.

States are called ‘civilized’ because they have legal and political development and a certain behavior. According to realist theory, states have self-interest (not feelings or conscience), so they cannot have a civilized nature and their behavior depends on leaders, institutions and international pressures.

From the other side of realist theory, if a state is called ‘civilized’, it is naturally expected to behave in accordance with the civilized nature of a state, such as restraint in judgment, respect for the law and consideration for human dignity, etc. Otherwise, the word ‘civilized’ loses its meaning and undermines the foundation of the international order.

Without human dignity, a state becomes cruel and genocidal. That is why Emer de Vatel emphasized in his book ‘The Law of Nations’ that states should act in their relations according to justice, fairness and reason. John Westlake has said that ‘international law is the law that civilized states impose on themselves and on the backward peoples they protect’ (Edward Said has exposed how Westlake used legal and moral language to legitimize Western power).

Colonialism was wrong, but where did the ‘civilized word’ that Western states themselves imposed on themselves go in the post-colonial era? My question is to those scholars today who worry about the possible death of international law.

Many writers point to the possible ‘death’ or failure of international law due to its inability to enforce accountability for conflicts, war crimes and acts of genocide. Its origins were limited to the club of historical, Eurocentric Western powers, to describe international law as regulating activities between ‘civilized states’. Modern international law, in contrast, is universal, inclusive and based on the sovereign equality of all states rather than on the notion of ‘civilization’.

Modern international law expects states to behave civilly. Therefore, in my view, the so-called ‘death’ of international law is the real death of the civil nature of states. A ‘civilized state’ can commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This does not mean the death of law.

Compliance with international law often depends on the voluntary will of states. Powerful states often ignore international law when it conflicts with their national interests or otherwise use its language to justify illegal actions. This hypocrisy undermines the universal legitimacy of law. Events such as the conflicts in Venezuela, Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, where mass atrocities and widespread civilian casualties have occurred. The evolving nature of warfare presents new dilemmas as new challenges emerge, such as cyberwarfare and the use of AI in conflict.

‘Donro Doctrine’

US supporters and opponents may be celebrating the arrest and imprisonment of Nicolás Maduro in the US. US President Trump has described the US invasion and Maduro's arrest as a "grand and unique show of force". Trump is using the action against Venezuela as a means to intimidate other small countries. Denmark is reportedly worried about when the US will invade Greenland.

Trump has renamed the 'Monroe Doctrine' after himself. The 'Monroe Doctrine' refers to the US's intervention and control of the entire South American region at its will. The 'Monroe Doctrine' emphasizes US control of the Western Hemisphere to prevent 'hemispheric rivals'.

But what an irony - Argentine President Javier Miel has welcomed the fall of Maduro's regime. El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele has signaled support via social media. Ecuador's President Daniel Noboa has said that the US action is a blow to Venezuela's 'narco-chavista' structures. These countries are fearful of Trump’s potential action.

Russia, Iran, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Belarus and Chile have condemned the US military action. France, Spain and other EU countries have called for respect for international law and de-escalation. Western European countries seem to be finding it difficult to accept or condemn the ‘Monroe Doctrine’. On the one hand, they are united against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while on the other hand, they are uncertain about how to respond to the US invasion of Venezuela.

Russia and China may be happy to refine their respective spheres of influence ‘doctrine’. Whether Russia and China will succeed in maintaining their respective ‘doctrine’ is a different question, although some experts are pointing to the emergence of three major influential powers in world politics. First, complete American dominance in South America. Second, Russian dominance in its own periphery. Third, Chinese dominance in its own regions.

A few years ago, the so-called Indian ‘Monroe Doctrine’ was a topic of debate in the Nepalese parliament. In the context of India-Nepal, the irrelevant debate over the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ reflects how small and weak nations perceive increasing external pressure from global powers.

The world is now entering a lawless era defined by conflict, coercion and military puppetry. As the world divides into competing blocs, even countries like Nepal, historically independent and non-aligned from military blocs, are forced to be vigilant in their geopolitics.

There was a large banner poster at the US embassy in Kathmandu against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. No one in Kathmandu will put up a banner against the US invasion of Venezuela.

For Nepali readers, the title ‘Little America ‘in the Heart of Kathmandu’ in Nanda Shrestha’s book ‘In the Name of Development’ gave a message decades ago. How many Nepalis are sensitive to this? What are the policies of Nepal’s old and new political parties? Everyone needs to think seriously about world politics.

Colonial and imperialist times are the most dangerous times for small states. But small powers should not underestimate the principles of the United Nations. Supporting the principles of the United Nations of sovereign equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for human rights, and non-interference in domestic affairs and encouragement of mutual cooperation, Nepal should adhere to its non-aligned foreign policy of not forming alliances with any military alliance.

This is the only strength of a small power. Any and all powerful aggressors will have to stand in the court of history. ‘Barbaric’ dictators do not always survive. However, this requires patience in the human mind, sooner or later empires rise and fall. Small powers need the ability to ‘swim the waves’ and ‘walk the diplomatic tightrope’ of world politics.

India’s official response to the US military action in Venezuela has been described as a ‘matter of deep concern’. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has issued the following statement: ‘China is deeply shocked and strongly condemns the use of force by the United States against a sovereign country and its president.

Such hegemonic actions by the United States seriously violate international law, violate the sovereignty of Venezuela, and endanger peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean. We call on the United States to abide by international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and stop violating the sovereignty and security of other countries.’