Operation Resolute Resolve – A Brief Critical Analysis

By By Rosy Mylene Meza. 

Abonnez-vous au canal Telegram Strategika pour ne rien rater de notre actualité

Pour nous soutenir commandez les livres Strategika : “Globalisme et dépopulation” , « La guerre des USA contre l’Europe » et « Société ouverte contre Eu

Rosy Mylene Meza is a doctor of American Jurisprudence, attorney at law and foreign affairs analyst.

Here is a short and sweet outline of the probable and possible violations of both the customary laws of war and established International Law by virtue of the incursion of US special forces into Venezuelan sovereign territory within the mandate of Operation Absolute Resolve, execution date of January 3, 2026. Included in this brief outline are also the possible violations of Criminal International Law incurred by the United States of America given the kidnapping and abduction of a sovereign foreign leader.

1. Violation of State Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: A state engaging in the abduction and removal of a sovereign leader without the host country’s express consent is violating the territorial sovereignty and political independence of that state. This is a core norm of international law enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Washington’s abduction and kidnapping of President Nicolas maduro therefore violates basic principles of codified International Law.
2. Head of State Immunity: Sitting heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers are granted immunity (ratione personae) from criminal prosecution in foreign courts to ensure they can perform their diplomatic duties effectively without fear of arrest. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has upheld this principle. Nicolas Maduro was the sitting Head of State at the time of his forceful removal from the bedroom he and his wife occupied in the Presidential Palace of Venezuela.
3. Absence of Legal Justification for Use of Force: The only internationally recognized justification for the use of force is the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or with authorization from the UN Security Council. Drug trafficking or other alleged crimes do not justify an armed incursion to capture a leader without an armed attack having occurred. In the kidnapping and abduction of Nicolas Maduro there is NO justification of self-defense that can be adduced by members of the US Special forces team involved in the abduction, nor by President Donald J. Trump, nor by Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth nor by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who graduated from my Alma Mater. Eum pudeat.
4. Breach of Extradition Norms: The legal way to bring an individual from another country to stand trial is through established extradition processes, usually governed by treaties and with the cooperation of local authorities. Unilateral abduction bypasses these legal procedures and is contrary to the international legal order. Operation Absolute Resolve has been and is violative of this norm.
5. Act of Aggression: Depending on the scale and context, an armed attack and abduction of a head of state could be defined as an « act of aggression » under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, which engages the international responsibility of the acting state for an internationally wrongful act. 

Here are the Heavies of Operation Absolute Resolve, in terms of the personal and criminal liability of the CHAIN OF COMMAND involved therein.

• The UN Convention Against Torture is implicated.  The act of kidnapping or abducting a sovereign head of state is a profound violation of International Law, primarily the principles of state sovereignty, supra, and the personal inviolability and immunity granted to sitting heads of state under customary international law. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) may be violated depending on the specific circumstances of the abduction. President Nicolas Maduro was seen LIMPING after his arrival in US soil following his forceful removal from the Presidential Palace in Caracas, Venezuela on January 3, 2026 by US Special Forces. Note: there is a form of “STRICT LIABILITY” for torture. In other words, the prohibition against torture is an absolute and a non-derogable human right. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION NOR DEFENSE UNDER LAW for the commission of torture.

• Soldiers face personal criminal liability for war crimes under International Law, meaning they can be prosecuted individually for committing, attempting, aiding, abetting, planning, or instigating violations of the laws of war, regardless of orders. This responsibility extends to commanders for failing to prevent, repress, or report crimes, holding them accountable if they knew or should have known about violations and had the power to stop them, establishing individual accountability beyond just state responsibility. U.S. Navy Admiral Alvin Holsdey retired in December 2025 after relinquishing command of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in a ceremony on December 12, 2025, ending a distinguished 37-year career amidst increased tensions and military operations in the Caribbean and off Venezuela. Significantly, Admiral Holsdey’s early departure followed reports of disagreements with Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth regarding escalating anti-drug strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

The above is a brief analysis. Chain of Command liability and culpability may well extend to the Oval Office. As the Chief Commander of the US Armed Forces, Donald J. Trump may face severe criminal and civil liability in future. This is unfortunate. President Trump has been profoundly ill-advised.

This article is dedicated to the memory of Lieutenant Commander John F. Cleater, of the US Navy, and First Lieutenant Clifford R. Williams, of the US Army Special Forces. Semper Fi.

Rosy Mylene Meza

Juris Doctor