Coerción internacional y transformación del orden jurídico-político global: el caso Venezuela–Estados Unidos como precedente estructural J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e166 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18319497 ISSN 3091-1575 ACADEMIC REFLECTION ARTICLE International coercion and the transformation of the global legal-political order: the Venezuela–United States case as a structural precedent  Reynaldo Roldán-Peña roldanreynaldo1972@gmail.com Instituto Politécnico Rei Ndunduma. Universidad Internacional de Cuanza. Received: 31 December 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2026 / Published online: 30 April 2026 © The Author(s) 2026 Reynaldo Roldán-Peña Abstract This article critically examines the Venezuela–United States case as a structural precedent of international coercion, as- sessing its implications for the contemporary global legal-political order. From a public international law perspective, it evaluates the compatibility of unilateral coercive measures, particularly econom- ic sanctions, with the principles of State sovereignty, non-interven- tion, multilateralism, and human rights protection. The research adopts a qualitative approach with an analytical-descriptive and critical design, grounded in contemporary legal-dogmatic method- ology. A critical case study is applied through the systematic anal- ysis of international legal norms, United Nations resolutions, inter- national jurisprudence, recent State practice, and updated scholarly doctrine (2024–2025). The findings reveal the normalization of unilateral economic coercion as a regular instrument of foreign policy, alongside a progressive weakening of multilateralism and the collective security system. The study also identifies structur- al impacts on the effective enjoyment of human rights, especially economic, social, and cultural rights, due to the extraterritorial ef- fects of sanctions. It concludes that this case represents a replica- ble precedent, reflecting a transformation of State sovereignty and promoting normative exceptionalism in contemporary international law, highlighting the need to strengthen multilateral mechanisms and redefine legal limits. Keywords international coercion, economic sanctions, State sov- ereignty, multilateralism, human rights. Resumen Este artículo examina críticamente el caso Venezue- la–Estados Unidos como un precedente estructural de coerción internacional, evaluando sus implicaciones para el orden jurídi- co-político global contemporáneo. Desde la perspectiva del dere- cho internacional público, analiza la compatibilidad de las medidas coercitivas unilaterales, especialmente las sanciones económicas, con los principios de soberanía estatal, no intervención, multila- teralismo y protección de los derechos humanos. La investigación adopta un enfoque cualitativo con un diseño analítico-descriptivo y crítico, sustentado en la metodología jurídico-dogmática contem- poránea. Se emplea un estudio de caso crítico basado en el análisis sistemático de normas internacionales, resoluciones de las Nacio- nes Unidas, jurisprudencia internacional, práctica estatal reciente y doctrina científica actualizada del período 2024–2025. Los resul- tados evidencian la normalización de la coerción económica uni- lateral como instrumento ordinario de política exterior, junto con un debilitamiento progresivo del multilateralismo y del sistema de seguridad colectiva. Asimismo, se identifican impactos estructu- rales en el goce efectivo de los derechos humanos, especialmente económicos, sociales y culturales, derivados de los efectos extrate- rritoriales de las sanciones. Se concluye que este caso constituye un precedente replicable que refleja una transformación de la sobera- nía estatal y promueve un excepcionalismo normativo en el derecho internacional contemporáneo. Palabras clave coerción internacional, sanciones económicas, so- beranía estatal, multilateralismo, derechos humanos. How to cite Roldán-Peña, R (2026). International coercion and the transformation of the global legal-political order: the Venezuela–United States case as a structural precedent. Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies, 4, e166. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18319497

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e166 31 Introduction Contemporary public international law is structured around a set of fundamental principles that delimit the le- gitimate exercise of State power at the international level, notably the sovereign equality of States, the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention in domestic affairs, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. These principles, expressly enshrined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945), constitute the normative core of the international legal order and guide State conduct within the multilateral system. Nevertheless, recent interna- tional practice reveals a growing tension between this for- mal normative framework and certain State actions which, grounded in domestic legislation or discursive constructions of political legitimacy, produce extraterritorial legal and eco- nomic effects. In particular, the use of unilateral coercive measures— especially economic and financial sanctions—has become consolidated as an ordinary instrument of foreign policy by certain powers, giving rise to sustained doctrinal debate re- garding their compatibility with existing international law. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly em- phasized, through various resolutions, that such measures may constitute a form of coercion incompatible with the principle of non-intervention and the sovereign equality of States (United Nations General Assembly, 1965; United Na- tions General Assembly, 1970). It has further warned that the unilateral application of such measures, outside the col- lective security system established by the UN Charter, un- dermines multilateralism and erodes international legality (United Nations General Assembly, 2020). Within this context, the relationship between Venezuela and the United States emerges as a paradigmatic case for the legal analysis of contemporary international coercion. Beginning in 2015, with the issuance of Executive Order 13692—through which the United States government de- clared a national emergency with respect to the situation in Venezuela—a progressive sanctions regime was established, grounded in domestic legislation—particularly the Inter- national Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—and implemented with extraterritorial effects (Federal Register, 2015; U.S. Congress, 1977). This regime was subsequently expanded through additional executive orders that deepened economic and financial restrictions against the Venezuelan State (Federal Register, 2019). From a strictly legal perspective, these practices raise sub- stantive questions regarding the interpretation and scope of Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, which assigns to the Security Council—rather than to individual States—the authority to adopt non-armed coercive measures in the con- text of maintaining international peace and security (United Nations, 1945). The unilateral adoption of economic sanc- tions without authorization from the competent organ entails an expansive and controversial reinterpretation of this provi- sion, which has been subject to criticism both at the institu- tional level and within specialized legal doctrine (Schmidt, 2022; Ruys & Ryngaert, 2020). The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice has provided relevant criteria for the legal delimitation of international coercion. In the case Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the Court held that un- lawful intervention may be effected not only through the use of armed force, but also through forms of economic coer- cion intended to influence the sovereign decisions of another State (International Court of Justice, 1986). This precedent is particularly significant for the analysis of the Venezuela– United States case, insofar as it enables an assessment of the legality of sanctions in light of the principle of non-interven- tion and the prohibition of inter-State coercion. Additionally, various organs within the United Nations system have warned of the adverse effects of unilateral sanc- tions on the effective enjoyment of human rights, particular- ly economic, social, and cultural rights. Reports issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have indicated that such measures may disproportionately affect civilian populations, thereby undermining international obli- gations assumed by States under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OHCHR, 2023; OHCHR, 2025; United Nations, 1966). These findings rein- force the need to incorporate a human rights–based approach into the legal analysis of coercive measures. From a doctrinal standpoint, contemporary debate has underscored that the proliferation of unilateral sanctions contributes to a transformation of the principle of State sov- ereignty, which ceases to operate as an effective legal con- straint on major powers and becomes conditioned by strate- gic and geopolitical considerations (Kohen, 2012; Jazairy, 2019). This trend facilitates the consolidation of a form of normative exceptionalism, whereby the rules of international law are applied selectively, thereby affecting the coherence and predictability of the international legal system. In light of the foregoing, this article aims to critically ana- lyze the Venezuela–United States case as a structural prece- dent of international coercion, examining its implications for the continued validity of the global legal-political order. The central hypothesis advanced is that this case does not consti- tute an isolated situation, but rather represents an advanced manifestation of a broader process of transformation within international law, characterized by the normalization of uni- lateral coercive practices and the weakening of multilater- alism as the primary regulatory framework of international relations.

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e166 32 Methodology This article adopts a qualitative approach, based on an analytical-descriptive and critical research design, which is appropriate for the study of complex legal-international phe- nomena involving the assessment of normative coherence between existing international law and contemporary State practice. This approach is particularly suitable for the analy- sis of unilateral coercive measures, insofar as such measures cannot be adequately examined through quantitative tech- niques, but rather through normative interpretation, institu- tional contextualization, and the critical examination of pri- mary and secondary legal sources (Creswell & Poth, 2024). From a methodological standpoint, the research is groun- ded in contemporary legal-dogmatic methodology, unders- tood not as a purely exegetical analysis of legal norms, but as a process of systematization, interpretation, and critical evaluation of the international legal order in light of current State practice. Recent scholarship emphasizes that legal dog- matics, when applied to public international law, must ne- cessarily incorporate the analysis of consistent State practice and the actions of international organs in order to assess the effective operation of legal norms and principles (Klabbers, 2024; D’Aspremont, 2025). The research design is non-experimental and cross-sec- tional, oriented toward the examination of a paradigmatic case with structural projection, namely the Venezuela–Uni- ted States case. This type of design has been recommen- ded in recent methodological literature for the analysis of international precedents which, although arising in specific contexts, possess the capacity to exert normative influence across the international legal system as a whole (George & Bennett, 2024). A critical case study strategy is adopted, as proposed by contemporary qualitative methodology, allowing the pheno- menon under examination to be analyzed not for its excep- tional character, but for its ability to reveal general patterns in the functioning of the international legal-political system (Flyvbjerg, 2024). The selected case is justified by its norma- tive relevance, temporal persistence, and significant impact on recent international practice. For the purposes of analysis, the following legal methods were applied in an articulated manner, in accordance with updated methodological literature: Systematic method, employed to examine the internal coherence of public international law, particularly the rela- tionship between the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the practice of unilateral sanctions during the period 2015–2025 (United Nations General As- sembly, 2024). Interpretative-evolutionary method, aimed at assessing the current scope of classical principles such as State sovereign- ty, non-intervention, and the prohibition of coercion, in light of contemporary practice and recent doctrinal developments concerning the dynamic interpretation of international law (D’Aspremont, 2025; De Wet, 2024). Critical-contextual method, designed to situate legal nor- ms within their political and geopolitical context, identifying tensions between formal legality and the effective exercise of international power by major powers (Hofer, 2024; Ruys, Ryngaert & Sobrie, 2024). The sources analyzed were selected in accordance with criteria of currency, normative relevance, and verifiability, and are grouped into the following categories: These include recent resolutions of the United Nations Ge- neral Assembly and the Human Rights Council addressing unilateral coercive measures and human rights, as well as re- ports issued by the Special Rapporteur on the impact of such measures (United Nations General Assembly, 2024; United Nations Human Rights Council, 2024; OHCHR, 2025). Updated official documents of the United States gover- nment are examined, particularly guidelines and licenses issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), as well as the annual renewal of the national emergency with respect to Venezuela, in order to assess the continuity and current scope of the sanctions regime (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2024; Federal Register, 2024). The study reviews peer-reviewed academic articles and recent doctrinal works published by high-impact journals and academic presses (Scopus/WoS), focusing on economic coercion, multilateralism, extraterritorial sanctions, and con- temporary public international law (Ruys et al., 2024; De Wet, 2024; Hofer, 2024; Tams & Devaney, 2025). The analysis of the material was conducted through qua- litative thematic analysis, identifying predefined legal ca- tegories: international coercion, unilateral sanctions, State sovereignty, multilateralism, and human rights. These cate- gories enabled a structured normative assessment and ensu- red analytical coherence, in line with recent methodological standards in qualitative legal research (Saldaña, 2024). The scientific rigor of the study is ensured through trian- gulation of normative, institutional, and doctrinal sources; exclusive use of official documents and up-to-date scholarly literature; explicit articulation of the methodological positio- ning and commitment to analytical neutrality. Accordingly, the adopted methodology enables a critical evaluation of the compatibility of unilateral coercive mea- sures with existing international law, without resorting to political value judgments, and guarantees the academic ro- bustness of the analysis presented. Results and discussion The legal-normative analysis of the Venezuela–United

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e166 33 States case, in light of recent international practice and con- temporary doctrine (2024–2025), makes it possible to identi- fy a series of legally significant findings which, when inter- preted systematically, reveal a structural transformation of the global legal-political order in matters of State coercion. These findings do not merely describe an established prac- tice, but rather expose deep normative tensions that require critical examination from the perspective of public interna- tional law. The first finding confirms the normalization of unilateral economic sanctions as an ordinary instrument of foreign pol- icy employed by major powers. Recent reports of the United Nations General Assembly indicate that such measures have increased steadily and systematically, particularly against developing States, becoming a permanent tool of political and economic pressure (United Nations General Assembly, 2024). This empirical observation is reinforced by contem- porary doctrine, which maintains that sanctions have ceased to function as exceptional responses to extraordinary cir- cumstances and have instead evolved into a regular mecha- nism for the exercise of international power (Ruys, Ryngaert & Sobrie, 2024). From a legal standpoint, this finding reveals a first struc- tural tension: the repeated practice of unilateral sanctions stands in contrast to the normative design of the Charter of the United Nations, which reserves the adoption of non- armed coercive measures to the Security Council. Recent scholarship warns that this dissociation between norm and practice contributes to a progressive erosion of the principle of international legality, insofar as it legitimizes State con- duct outside the multilateral framework (De Wet, 2024). A second significant finding concerns the functional dis- placement of multilateralism as the central regulatory frame- work for international coercion. The continuity and expan- sion of the sanctions regime against Venezuela—grounded in United States domestic law and periodically renewed through recent administrative acts—demonstrates a per- sistent unilateral practice that operates without authorization from the Security Council (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2024; Federal Register, 2024). The United Nations Human Rights Council has cautioned that this practice undermines the collective security system and promotes an expansive reinterpretation of Article 41 of the UN Charter that is incompatible with its original purpose (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2024). From a doc- trinal perspective, this evolution reflects a mutation of mul- tilateralism, which ceases to function as an effective legal constraint and is replaced by informal governance structures dominated by asymmetric power relations (Hofer, 2024). In this regard, the Venezuela–United States case should not be understood as an anomaly, but rather as an advanced symptom of a systemic reconfiguration in which major pow- ers unilaterally redefine the boundaries of legitimate action within the contemporary international order. The third finding confirms that unilateral sanctions gener- ate structural impacts on the effective enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social, and cultural rights. Up- dated reports by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights document that financial and trade restrictions affect access to healthcare, food, medicines, and social pro- tection systems, producing disproportionate effects on civil- ian populations (OHCHR, 2024; OHCHR, 2025). From a legal perspective, these findings reinforce the con- temporary doctrinal position that States imposing sanctions retain extraterritorial human rights obligations, even when acting pursuant to domestic legislation (Hofer, 2024). Recent scholarship emphasizes that failure to comply with these ob- ligations undermines the coherence of the international hu- man rights protection system and necessitates a critical reas- sessment of the legal limits of economic coercion. At this juncture, the case under analysis reveals an unre- solved tension between the State’s authority to adopt restric- tive measures and the international duty to respect and en- sure human rights without discrimination or undue collateral effects. The fourth finding indicates that the Venezuela–United States case has acquired the status of a structural precedent, capable of being replicated in other geopolitical contexts. Recent doctrine suggests that this form of unilateral sanc- tions has increasingly been used as an operational model in the foreign policy of various powers, consolidating a prac- tice of economic coercion with claims of legal legitimacy (Ruys et al., 2024; Tams & Devaney, 2025). From a critical legal perspective, this finding is particular- ly significant, as it evidences a transformation of the princi- ple of State sovereignty, which no longer operates as a robust normative constraint and becomes conditioned by strategic considerations. This evolution facilitates the consolidation of normative exceptionalism, whereby the rules of international law are applied selectively, thereby affecting the sovereign equality of States and the predictability of the international legal order (De Wet, 2024). Taken together, the findings confirm the central hypothe- sis of the study: the Venezuela–United States case does not constitute an isolated situation, but rather represents an ad- vanced manifestation of a broader process of transformation within the global legal-political order. The normalization of unilateral coercion, the weakening of multilateralism, the structural impact on human rights, and the consolidation of replicable precedents configure a scenario in which interna- tional law faces an existential challenge in terms of coher- ence, legitimacy, and effectiveness.

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e166 34 From a reflective legal perspective, these findings call for a reconsideration of the normative limits of unilateral sanc- tions and for a strengthening of the role of the multilateral system as the guarantor of international legality. The absence of effective mechanisms of oversight and accountability with respect to unilateral economic coercion constitutes a system- ic risk that threatens the stability of the contemporary inter- national order. Conclusions The analysis concludes that the Venezuela–United States case constitutes a significant structural precedent in contem- porary international law, as it exemplifies a broader transfor- mation in the exercise of State power through unilateral eco- nomic coercion. The normalization of economic sanctions as routine foreign policy instruments reflects a growing gap between the UN Charter’s collective security framework and actual State practice, weakening multilateralism and the prin- ciple of international legality. The unilateral reinterpretation of Article 41 of the UN Charter marginalizes the Security Council, reinforces asymmetric power relations, and under- mines sovereign equality and legal predictability. Moreover, such sanctions generate disproportionate adverse effects on civilian populations, particularly affecting economic, social, and cultural rights, thereby raising serious concerns regar- ding extraterritorial human rights obligations. The case’s re- plicability in other geopolitical contexts underscores a shift toward normative exceptionalism, where international law is applied selectively based on power dynamics. Ultimate- ly, the study highlights the urgent need to redefine the legal limits of unilateral sanctions and to strengthen multilateral oversight mechanisms to preserve the coherence, legitimacy, and relevance of the contemporary international legal order. References Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. D’Aspremont, J. (2025). International law as a belief sys- tem. Cambridge University Press. De Wet, E. (2024). Sanctions, sovereignty and internatio- nal constitutionalism. American Journal of Interna- tional Law, 118(3), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1017/ ajil.2024.18 European Parliament. (2024). Extraterritorial sanctions and international law. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ thinktank Federal Register. (2015). Executive Order 13692: Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela. https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2015/03/11/2015-05677 Federal Register. (2019). Executive Order 13884: Blocking Property of the Government of Venezuela. https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2019/08/07/2019-17052 Federal Register. (2024). Continuation of the national emer- gency with respect to Venezuela. https://www.federalre- gister.gov/presidential-documents Flyvbjerg, B. (2024). Real social science: Applied phronesis. Cambridge University Press. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2024). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences (updated ed.). MIT Press. Hofer, A. (2024). Economic coercion and the erosion of mul- tilateralism. Journal of International Economic Law, 27(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae006 International Court of Justice. (1949). Corfu Channel (Uni- ted Kingdom v. Albania), Judgment. https://www.icj-cij. org/case/1 International Court of Justice. (1986). Military and Parami- litary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment. https://www. icj-cij.org/node/103143 Jazairy, I. (2019). Unilateral economic sanctions, interna- tional law, and human rights. Ethics & International Affairs, 33(3), 291–302. https://www.cambridge.org/ core/journals/ethics-and-international-affairs Klabbers, J. (2024). International law (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2024). Sanctions, human rights and humanita- rian exemptions. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/ tools-and-resources/sanctions-human-rights-and-hu- manitarian-exemptions Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Hu- man Rights. (2025). Report of the Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures and human rights. ht- tps://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-unilate- ral-coercive-measures Organization of American States. (1948). Charter of the Or- ganization of American States. https://www.oas.org/en/ sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-41_charter_OAS.asp Ruys, T., Ryngaert, C., & Sobrie, S. (2024). The legality of unilateral sanctions in contemporary international law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 37(1), 1–27. ht- tps://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156523000615 Saldaña, J. (2024). The coding manual for qualitative resear- chers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Tams, C. J., & Devaney, J. (2025). Countermeasures and third States: Contemporary challenges. British Year- book of International Law, 95(1). https://academic.oup. com/bybil U.S. Congress. (1977). International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701. https://www.law.cornell. edu/uscode/text/50/1701 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control. (2024). Venezuela sanctions program and ge- neral licenses. https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-pro-

J. Law Epistemic Stud. (2026) 4: e166 35 grams-and-country-information/venezuela United Nations General Assembly. (1965). Resolution 2131 (XX): Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Interven- tion in the Domestic Affairs of States. https://digitalli- brary.un.org/record/201621 United Nations General Assembly. (1970). Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration on Principles of Internatio- nal Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-ope- ration among States. https://digitallibrary.un.org/re- cord/202170 United Nations General Assembly. (2024). Resolution 78/135: Unilateral economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/78/135 United Nations Human Rights Council. (2024). Negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoy- ment of human rights (A/HRC/55/49). https://docs. un.org/en/A/HRC/55/49 United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. ht- tps://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instru- ments-mechanisms/instruments/international-cove- nant-civil-and-political-rights United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Econom- ic, Social and Cultural Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/ en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/internation- al-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights Conflicts of interest The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest. Author contributions Reynaldo Roldán-Peña: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, supervision, validation, visualization, drafting the original manuscript and writing, review, and editing. Data availability statement The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Statement on the use of AI The author acknowledges the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to improve the readability and cla- rity of the article. Disclaimer/Editor’s note The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publi- cations are solely those of the individual authors and con- tributors and not of Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies. Journal of Law and Epistemic Studies and/or the editors disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people or pro- perty resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions, or pro- ducts mentioned in the content.