The Venezuela blockade and the collapse of the global maritime order

On December 16, 2025, the United States imposed a naval blockade on Venezuela without declaring war or receiving authorization from the United Nations Security Council. This action is not a military intervention in the classical sense. It is a sign of a much more profound and dangerous transformation. The legal and political definition of war has been altered. A blockade is, by its very nature, an act of war under classical and contemporary international law of armed conflict, the law of naval warfare, and customary law. Despite this, the implementation against Venezuela has been legitimized using the language of “counter-terrorism” and “inspection of sanctioned tankers.” There is no declared war, but there is a new mechanism that produces all the consequences of war. This model applied in Venezuela is related to the Trump Corollary/Monroe Doctrine mentioned in the U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS 2025). An antithesis to the NSS 2025, published on December 4, 2025, arrived on December 10, 2025, with China’s Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Policy Paper. With this document, China declares that it will not withdraw from the U.S. sphere of influence. The clash of these two documents over Venezuela will have unavoidable effects on the global maritime security system. 

UPDATING THE MONROE DOCTRINE WITH NSS 2025

When the Monroe Doctrine was announced by President James Monroe in 1823, it was a defensive, restrictive, and inward-looking principle. It rejected renewed colonial intervention by Europe in the Western Hemisphere, while emphasizing that the U.S. would not interfere in Europe’s wars or political disputes. This approach was based on political warning rather than the use of military force, reflecting the reflex of a young U.S. to protect its fragility. During the Theodore Roosevelt era, the doctrine was radically transformed. With the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary, the U.S. claimed the right to intervene directly in Latin American countries under the pretext of preventing European intervention, and the Monroe Doctrine was transformed into a regional “policing” authority, an overtly interventionist and imperial tool. Franklin D. Roosevelt formally softened this harsh interpretation. He maintained U.S. hegemony through economic, diplomatic, and institutional tools rather than direct military occupations, and made the Monroe principle part of a global order-building framework after World War II. In the Donald Trump era, the Monroe Doctrine was brought back to the agenda with a narrower but sharper language of sovereignty. While the Western Hemisphere was defined as the natural sphere of influence for the U.S., international law, multilateralism, and institutional mechanisms were pushed to the background, and economic sanctions, maritime inspections, and unilateral use of force were legitimized. Thus, the Doctrine has gone through four distinct phases: a defensive warning under Monroe, coercive regional imperialism under Theodore Roosevelt, institutionalized hegemony under Franklin Roosevelt, and a harsh, unilateral sphere-of-influence doctrine that rejects the multilateral order under Trump. In short, the NSS 2025 document reflects a profound paradigm shift regarding the global role of the U.S. The U.S. no longer defines itself as the “guardian of the world order,” but instead directs its priority spheres of influence toward the Western Hemisphere. The basic assumption is this: The Western Hemisphere is the U.S.’s exclusive security and sphere of influence, and the establishment of influence by extra-hemispheric powers (such as China, Russia, and Iran) in this area, even through non-military means, is considered a national security threat. What is critical at this point is that the NSS 2025 does not limit the use of force to military conflict. Economic sanctions, maritime inspections under the guise of law enforcement, counter-terrorism rhetoric, and unilateral enforcement mechanisms are defined as tools that operate “below the threshold of war” but produce the results of war. The Venezuela case is the first concrete application of this doctrine.

VENEZUELA AND THE LAW OF BLOCKADE

In international law, a blockade is defined as a method of naval warfare specific to wartime, and it is accepted that a state using armed force to prevent entry and exit by sea to the ports and coasts of another state creates a de facto state of war, even if war has not been declared; for its legal legitimacy, a blockade must be declared, effectively implemented, and subject to the laws of war regarding neutral states. For this reason, a blockade differs in nature from sanctions, inspections, or maritime security operations implemented in peacetime. When implemented without a UN Security Council resolution or an explicit state of armed conflict, it violates the prohibition on the use of force in international law. The normalization of “blockade-like” practices without a declaration of war blurs the legal boundary between war and peace, creating a dangerous precedent that directly threatens freedom of navigation on the seas, global trade, and the rights of neutral states. The blockade the U.S. has imposed on Venezuela is exactly this situation.

DECLARING VENEZUELA A TERRORIST STATE

With the Maduro administration being declared a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” on November 24, 2025, Venezuela was legally transformed into a criminal. On December 16, 2025, a naval blockade order was given to elements of the 4th Fleet under the command of the U.S. Southern Command on the grounds of “sanctioned tankers linked to terrorism.” Although a naval blockade is a wartime activity, the way was paved for it to be carried out as a form of law enforcement. At this point, the transformation is complete. That is, declaring a sovereign state a criminal network, followed by the intensification of military buildup and the execution of law enforcement activities on the ground. Thus, Congressional approval, UN resolutions, and declarations of war have become unnecessary. With this mechanism that effectively suspends the principle of sovereignty, the U.S. has created a precedent that could economically strangle not only Venezuela but any state in a similar manner. The most dangerous aspect of this model is that it has no legal boundaries. Any government that Washington defines as a “terror threat” can be deprived of all international protections provided by being a state. There is no notification requirement, no accountability, and no international oversight. This is, in reality, the collapse of the international order.

CHINA’S LAC (LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN) POLICY PAPER

When examined superficially, China’s Latin America and the Caribbean Policy Paper does not appear to directly conflict with the U.S. Monroe/Trump Corollary approach. The text is carefully drafted with phrases such as multilateralism, a UN-centered order, not targeting third parties, and peaceful development. However, the content of the document shows that China effectively aims to build a permanent and deep sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. Energy and natural resources, infrastructure and ports, maritime and blue economy, trade in local currency, RMB utilization mechanisms, and security dialogue are the fundamental elements of this strategy. The approximately one million barrels of oil per day going from Venezuela to China is the most concrete indicator of this relationship. Therefore, there is no contradiction at the document level; however, there is a serious conflict at the strategy-implementation level. While China is deepening its presence in the Western Hemisphere without forming military alliances and without directly triggering the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. has launched a de facto challenge to this expansion via Venezuela.

IS THE VENEZUELA BLOCKADE A MESSAGE TO CHINA?

For the reasons I explained above, the primary target of the blockade imposed on Venezuela is not Caracas. The message is for Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and all states in the Caribbean basin. The U.S. is issuing this warning: Any relationship that deepens with China along the axes of energy, finance, ports, and maritime trade can strip away the armor of sovereignty. This move is also an indirect blow to China’s energy security. The fact that the majority of Venezuelan oil goes to China makes the blockade not just a regional issue, but a global one. The NSS 2025 goal of “keeping extra-hemispheric rivals out of the area” is being executed from the sea in this way. In parallel with these developments, on December 18, 2025, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, in summary, that it supports the Caracas administration’s request for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council during this period of increasing pressure on Venezuela, as well as the right of countries to defend their sovereignty and national dignity; it declared that it is against unilateral bullying and that Venezuela has the right to cooperate with other states on the basis of mutual benefit.

THE RISK OF FRAGMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL MARITIME SYSTEM

The most destructive result of this model is its precedent-setting effect. The mechanism the U.S. has applied in Venezuela could be used tomorrow by China, the EU, and other continental and regional powers. “National security inspections” in the Taiwan Strait, “sanctions enforcement” in the Baltic Sea, “security control” in the Strait of Hormuz, and the cutting off of maritime traffic in the Mediterranean by the EU under the guise of combating illegal migration could now become a legitimate template. In this scenario, the U.S. would have no legal ground to object. More importantly, the U.S. Navy does not have the capacity to ensure global maritime security in the Caribbean, Western Pacific, Mediterranean, Baltics, and Hormuz simultaneously. The maritime transport routes and nodes it has boasted of protecting for the last 80 years will become insecure due to the lawless model it created itself. By eroding the principle of freedom of the seas, the U.S. is collapsing the global maritime order it built itself from within.

VENEZUELA IS A TESTING GROUND

Venezuela is the first testing ground of the new era. This is not an intervention; it is a template for all future interventions. A blockade without a declaration of war, maritime control without a UN resolution, and the use of force without Congressional authorization are now possible. If this model becomes normalized, the world’s oceans will be divided into fragmented spheres of influence, and global trade, energy security, and maritime law will be irreparably damaged. December 16, 2025, is the date the international order effectively collapsed. Most actors are not yet aware of this, but the seas have already begun to feel this change. This new model applied in Venezuela is, in essence, the practice of stripping a sovereign state of its status as a “state” and turning it into a criminal actor. By defining a government as a terror threat, the U.S. has suspended the war-peace distinction of international law; it has removed the naval blockade from being a military act and executed it under the guise of “law enforcement.” Thus, the blockade has been removed from being a tool historically associated with war and redefined as a law enforcement activity. This transformation has created a precedent that concerns not only Venezuela but the entire global system.

REFLECTIONS OF WHAT IS DONE IN VENEZUELA ON CHINA

The legal and strategic breach the U.S. has opened in Venezuela will create serious anomalies in global maritime balances and will be utilized by continental and regional powers, especially China. The U.S. has relied on justifications such as “counter-terrorism,” “drug trafficking,” and “violation of sanctions” against Venezuela. China, when it comes to Taiwan, can put forward the “One China” principle, which is accepted by the majority of the international community, that is, the argument of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. In other words, while the U.S. is inventing its own law in Venezuela, China can argue that it is relying on an existing claim of sovereignty in Taiwan. UN Resolution 2758 recognizes China as the sole legitimate representative for Taiwan, the Chinese constitution considers Taiwan an inseparable part, and everyone, including the U.S., accepts the One China Policy; in this framework, Beijing could effectively create a blockade without declaring “war” or “occupation” by saying that “maritime and air traffic has been taken under temporary security control due to separatist armed formations and foreign-backed security threats.” Or, it could implement an unnamed blockade by declaring prohibited zones/Danger Areas in the relevant regions to protect the 9-dash line EEZ area it has declared in the South China Sea. While the U.S. was cutting off maritime traffic off the coast of Venezuela, it did not call it a “blockade,” but used the language of “maritime security inspection,” “sanctions enforcement,” and “prevention of terror-linked trade.” China, too, could begin to control maritime traffic in the Taiwan Strait under similar headings of “customs inspection,” “combating smuggling,” “ensuring safe navigation,” or “preventing separatist activities.” When the legal terminology changes, the actual result does not. Cutting off maritime transport lines is the main goal. On the other hand, there are critical differences between the Venezuela and Taiwan/China Sea scenarios. Although the Venezuela blockade has had serious consequences on a regional scale, the Taiwan Strait is the heart of global trade. It is the node of world semiconductor production, East Asian maritime trade, and the Pacific-Indian Ocean connection. The maritime control China would implement there would be a version of the Venezuela example multiplied on a global scale. If the model the U.S. started in Venezuela is applied in Taiwan, the fuses of the global system will blow. On the other hand, Taiwan and the surrounding region have a military protection umbrella with the U.S. Navy, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and the AUKUS background; Taiwan is at the center of the global supply chain due to TSMC and semiconductors, and China would have to directly confront the U.S. Navy in such a move, whereas Venezuela is largely alone, its oil can be substituted, and the U.S. is strong in maritime control in the Caribbean. Therefore, such a step in Taiwan carries the risk of great power conflict for China.

CONCLUSION

The U.S. has claimed to be the guarantor of freedom of the seas for the last 80 years. However, it does not have the capability to manage crises when they start in different areas at the same time. The emergence of crises such as Venezuela in the Caribbean, Taiwan in the Western Pacific, Russia in the Baltics, and Iran in Hormuz strains its power. This model, initiated in Venezuela, erodes the maritime security architecture the U.S. created itself and offers its rivals a highly useful tool. For this reason, the Venezuela implementation is a precedent. Taiwan, on the other hand, has the potential to be the actual breaking point where this precedent can be tested on the global system. The moment this “warless blockade” practice, which started in the Caribbean, is repeated in the Pacific, it will have been declared that the international order has not only effectively but openly collapsed. As a result, we are entering an era of wars conducted without a declaration of war. The seas are becoming the main stage for blockade-like “security inspections,” counter-terrorism covers, and methods of strangulation through insurance-port-bank chains, and maritime geopolitics is advancing faster than the law.