The political and legal shockwaves caused by the unilateral US attack on the territory of Venezuela on 3 January 2026 are still being felt. However, the belief that this blatant use of force and the abduction of the President of Venezuela and his wife mark historical events and that other States’ reactions will contribute to shaping new coordinates of international law and international relations is already widespread (see here).

In this respect, the Italian authorities quickly expressed support for the US’s conduct, albeit with some ambiguity.

A few hours after the attack, the Italian Government issued the following statement:

In line with Italy’s long-standing position, the Government does not consider external military action to be the way forward to bring an end to totalitarian regimes. At the same time, however, it considers defensive action to be legitimate against hybrid security attacks, as in the case of state entities that fuel and facilitate drug trafficking.

In the same official note of 3 January 2026 the Italian Government also stated:

Italy has always supported the Venezuelan people’s aspiration for a democratic transition in Venezuela, condemning the acts of repression by the Maduro regime, whose self-proclaimed election victory has never been recognised by Italy or its main international partners.

Similarly, during an interview, the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Antonio Tajani, stated:

We believe that military intervention is not the right way to resolve issues, but at the same time the US intervention was legitimate given the threat they perceived. And I believe this will emerge during Maduro’s trial.

In essence, it seems that the Italian Government is qualifying the US’ military action as a form of self-defence against Venezuela, whose leadership is believed to be both illegitimate and involved in drugs-related hybrid attacks on the US. If transposed into a legality assessment, this would result in a very broad interpretation of the requirements for lawful self-defence under the UN Charter (art. 51), an interpretation that could erode the already weakened system of collective security (see, e.g., here). At any rate, it is noteworthy that both statements qualify the action against Venezuela as legitimate, a term which does not necessarily imply an assessment of legality. Interestingly, it appears that the US itself has ruled out the use of self-defence as a justification for its “law enforcement operation”, as it did not even mention it during the Security Council meeting held on 5 January 2026 (for a comment see here).

This quick support for the US military operation singles out Italy from other close allies and from the European institutions. For example, a statement of the EU High Representative (supported by all EU Member States, except Hungary) stressed that “under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld”, and added that whilst transnational organised crime and drug trafficking pose a “significant security threat worldwide”, “these challenges must be addressed through sustained cooperation in full respect of international law and the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty”. Italy has supported this statement, even if potentially in contradiction with its own individual assessment. Indeed, the only way to reconcile the position expressed individually by the Italian authorities with this collective statement seems to lie in the above-mentioned distinction between the assessment of legitimacy and that of legality.

Other EU countries have generally shown a greater degree of caution, expressing relief for the toppling of Maduro whilst refraining from making any legal assessment on the legality of the US attack, depicted as “complex”. In some instances, however, the operation has been qualified as a violation of the principle of non-use of force tout court (for a summary see here and here).

In conclusion, it should be noted that the Italian political parties are strongly divided on their assessment of the US’ operation (see here), with some dissident voices even within the majority.[1] With the resumption of the activities of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in a few days’ time, an intensification of the discussions concerning the legality of the US attack on Venezuela is expected in Parliament.

Alan Amadio

---

[1] For example Mr. Matteo Salvini, Minister of the Infrastructure and leader of the party “The League”, stated on X that “[f]or the League, diplomacy must once again become the main route for resolving international disputes and ending ongoing conflicts, respecting the right of peoples to decide their own future. The words of the [Pope] are illuminating in this regard, as he calls for Venezuela’s national sovereignty to be guaranteed and the rule of law to be upheld”.