Yiannis Rachiotis, Lawyer, Hellenic Union of Progressive Lawyers, ” International Association of Democratic Lawyers- IADL”
Introduction
The unprovoked invasion of Venezuela by the USA, the ruthless extermination of dozens of people, and the abduction and capture of its President, as has already been analyzed by many, constitute a violation of the core of international law. From Venezuela’s perspective, it amounts to a subversion of its sovereignty. The few historical examples of the capture of a head of state by foreign troops, such as Napoleon III by the Prussians after the Battle of Sedan, or Noriega and Saddam Hussein following the respective US invasions of their countries, had as their legal and practical consequence the subversion of their sovereignty and their subjugation to the conqueror, regardless of whether a part of the state and government apparatus remained in place.
International law, as shaped after World War ΙΙ, constitutes an achievement of human civilization, but the USA and its allies have for many years been its permanent adversary. They must now be considered an external threat to the system of international law and, consequently, a threat to human civilization.
The political purpose of the US attack had been repeatedly stated beforehand, from when they began amassing their military forces at Venezuela’s maritime borders: The overthrow of the Bolivarian-socialist democracy and the regaining of control over the country’s petroleum industry, the nationalization of which had been completed in 1976, long before Chávez’s election.
A few hours after the abduction of the Venezuelan president, the US leadership declared the achievement of its goals. They stated that henceforth they would “run” the country themselves [as Trump put it] for an indefinite period with the support not of the pro-USA opposition but of the rest of the Maduro government, informing us that the country’s vice president is cooperating with them and enjoys their respect (see joint press conference Trump-Rubio-Hegseth on 3.1.2026). The corresponding statements by representatives of the former Maduro government practically confirmed and in any case did not deny the statements of the American leadership (see statements of the then Vice President and the Minister of Defense on 3.1.2026).
The purpose of this article is to investigate to what extent the legislative and administrative changes recorded in both countries in the first month after the abduction confirm the statements primarily of the American side, i.e., whether we are facing the start of a process of intensive recolonization of Venezuela or if, on the contrary, January 3rd was an unpleasant historical incident without significant further consequences, as presented by several commentators.
Legislative and administrative changes in Venezuela in the first month after the abduction.
On 29.1.2026, just 26 days after the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan parliament completed the vote on the law amending the “Organic Hydrocarbons Law – Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos” [Gaceta oficial / Official Gazette No 6978], abolishing, after exactly 50 years, state control over oil, the country’s basic wealth-producing resource, [Article 3/23§3]. The main provisions of the new law are:
* Foreign companies extracting oil in Venezuela can now acquire a majority shareholding in the corresponding corporate entity and have its management [Articles 3,4]. Thus, they can declare without control what quantity they extracted and at what cost, and practically determine alone what they will pay the state for taxes, royalties, and dividends.
* The taxation of companies together with any kind of fees is not permitted to cumulatively exceed 15% of net profits. Royalties are prohibited from exceeding 30%, and the competent minister is authorized to reduce the percentage to as low as 15% if there are extraction difficulties [Article 51 of the organic law]. That is, the state prohibited itself by law (!!) from seeking a greater percentage of public benefit during negotiations with contractors. These percentages are much lower than those provided for by previous legislation for the minority (then) participations of foreign companies.
* Foreign companies can now also enter the oil trade, even if they have a minority participation [Article 8]. Until now, the trade has been exclusively under the state company PdVSA. Thus, the entire cycle of oil extraction and distribution passes into the hands of foreign companies, exclusively American, as we will see later.
* Any dispute arising between the state and contractors may be submitted to foreign arbitration [Article 2], even though the disputes will have arisen from a public contract and on Venezuelan territory. Exclusive submission to US law and courts is not explicitly mentioned. Contracts with foreign companies are approved by the President of the Republic and prevail over national law [Article 6].
Simultaneously, through administrative acts and a law being prepared, the few hundred members of the opposition who have been convicted for crimes in the context of clashes between the pro-American opposition and security forces have been or are expected to be released from prisons, without excluding, according to what we know so far, even those convicted of homicide. The practical significance of these measures is small, but their political significance, as a move of total repudiation of the previous regime, is obviously great.
Finally, by decision of the interim president, some military commanders were dismissed, and most notably, Alex Saab, Minister of Industry and National Production, a former diplomat, a close associate of the abducted President, and responsible for international cooperation to overcome sanctions. Alex Saab was, for this reason, always in the crosshairs of the USA; he was arrested in 2020 in Cape Verde to be handed over to the US, imprisoned in the USA, and after a global campaign for his release, was exchanged in 2023 for North American prisoners in Venezuela. Information is already circulating that the Rodríguez government is preparing to hand him over (again) to the USA.
Simultaneous changes in the US legislative framework.
As is known, in explicit contradiction to the definitions of the UN Charter, since 2014, the US has been imposing Unilateral Coercive Measures (UCMs) of economic strangulation on Venezuela, particularly in the petroleum industry sector, which they misleadingly call “sanctions” to be perceived as punishment for some “violation” by the other party. Also, they impose on whichever third countries they can, to apply their “sanctions.”
The measures initially concerned cutting Venezuela off from the international banking system so that it could not collect the proceeds from oil sales nor pay for its imports. Subsequently, they banned the sale of all spare parts and materials necessary for its petroleum industry, seized the PdVSA refinery located on their territory, and, through the British, seized the country’s gold reserves. Thus, they managed to reduce their oil sales revenues from $40 billion in 2014 to just $740 million in 2019. Venezuela, under the leadership of Nicolás Maduro, managed to neutralize the UCMs to a degree, with major Chinese investments, to carry out the necessary conversions and overcome the embargo on spare parts and materials, and with business partnerships with Chinese, Russian, and other companies that agreed to be paid in oil, thus bypassing the US-controlled global banking system.
The US responded last summer with a naval blockade of the country and the piratical seizure of every tanker moving to and from Venezuela and ultimately with the invasion and abduction of its president.
The UCMs were not lifted after January 3rd. However, on the very same date that Venezuela legislated the privatization and “opening” of its petroleum industry, the US Department of the Treasury through OFAC – “Office of Foreign Assets Control” issued General License No. 46 /29.1.2026, which permits exclusively US companies that have been established in the USA at least one year before its issuance to conduct business activities related to Venezuelan oil, while maintaining the arbitrary prohibition for all other companies in the world. For example, the state-owned PdVSA or a Chinese company that – hypothetically – would sign a contract with the government of Venezuela for oil extraction or transportation would continue to be subject to US UCMs, i.e., to commercial, banking, and naval blockade [paragraph b3]. In this way, US companies acquire a monopoly on the exploitation of Venezuelan oil under the colonial terms described above.
The same administrative act provides that: 1) The US companies that will take over the Venezuelan petroleum industry will not pay, directly to the state or to PdVSA, even the reduced royalties and tax that the new law provides for, but will deposit them in accounts indicated and supervised by the US Department of the Treasury (escrow accounts) [paragraph a2]. For the government to receive any part of these funds, it must submit to the US Secretary of the Treasury a draft law stipulating how the funds will be allocated and obtain his approval. The funds, as has already been publicly stated, will be allocated exclusively for the purchase of American products and services.
Finally, it is explicitly stated [paragraph a1] that for any dispute between the US companies that will exploit Venezuela’s oil, exclusively US law will apply and US arbitration and judicial bodies will have jurisdiction.
The combination of the above measures legislated simultaneously by Venezuela and by the USA leads the former to a loss of control not only over its wealth-producing resources but also over its very state budget. Anyone with elementary knowledge of public law knows that the decision on the state budget is a fundamental element of state sovereignty. The same applies to the exercise of judicial authority. In the case of Venezuela, after the 3rd of January 2026, these will no longer belong to the legitimate government, at least regarding a significant part of them.
Similar controls over public oil revenues were imposed on Iraq by the USA as the occupying power since 2003. These measures have prevented the country’s recovery, as even its diminished oil resources are directed to projects approved by the USA, based on its own interests. An additional and critically important consequence is that this US control over Iraq’s public finances has become the primary tool of political control and corruption. Through these approvals, the US authorities can favor or disadvantage various social groups and the corresponding factions within the political system.
Let us hope that the people of Venezuela have better fortune and, despite the severe blow they have suffered, soon find the strength to regain the sovereignty for which they have endured so many sacrifices.