Palavras-chave
Article 2(4)
jus cogens
jus ad bellum
UN Charter
state practice
exceptions-swallow-rule
Operation Epic Fury (2026)
US intervention in Venezuela (2026)
Responsibility to Protect
nuclear deterrence
legal uncertainty
Como Citar
Resumo
Este artigo não pergunta se o Artigo 2(4) da Carta da ONU foi erosionado, mas sim se alguma vez exerceu umarestrição real sobre os Estados com maior capacidade de usarforça armada. Com base em dados de conflito (UCDP/PRIO, Correlates of War MID, Military Intervention Project) e em estudos de caso qualitativos do comportamento dos membrospermanentes do Conselho de Segurança desde 1945 até à Operação Epic Fury (Fevereiro de 2026), o artigo argumentaque a proibição funciona como um filtro analítico, não comouma barreira física. O mecanismo central é a expansãoprogressiva das exceções formalmente estreitas (legítimadefesa ao abrigo do Artigo 51 e autorização do Conselho de Segurança) pelos próprios atores mais poderosos, sem sançãoefetiva. Quando as exceções se alargam a ponto de cobrirconduta indistitinguível da guerra agressiva, e nenhumaautoridade de execução corrige essa distância, a regrapermanece formalmente intacta, mas gera incerteza jurídica e deixa de prever o comportamento das grandes potências. Contudo, a rápida condenação jurídica da Operação Epic Fury demonstra resiliência normativa. O artigo conclui que o sistema é estruturalmente assimétrico: a proibição impõecustos retóricos e diplomáticos, mas nunca impediu as grandes potências de agir quando os seus interesses vitais estavam em jogo.
Referências
ANGHIE, A. Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
BELLAMY, A. J.; WILLIAMS, P. D. The new politics of protection? International Affairs, v. 87, n. 4, p. 825-850, 2011.
BETHLEHEM, D. Self-defence against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors. American Journal of International Law, v. 106, n. 4, p. 770-777, 2012.
BRAUMOELLER, B. F. Only the dead: the persistence of war in the modern age. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
BROWNLIE, I. International law and the use of force by states. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
BRUNNÉE, J.; TOOPE, S. J. Legitimacy and legality in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
CASSESE, A. Ex iniuria ius oritur. European Journal of International Law, v. 10, n. 1, p. 23-30, 1999.
CHATHAM HOUSE. The US capture of President Nicolás Maduro and attacks on Venezuela have no justification in international law. 6 jan. 2026. Disponível em: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/us-capture-president-nicolas-maduro-and-attacks-venezuela-have-no-justification. Acesso em: maio 2026.
CORTEN, O. The law against war. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010.
CRAWFORD, J. Brownlie’s principles of public international law. 9. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
DANNENBAUM, T. et al. Over 100 international law experts warn: U.S. strikes on Iran violate UN Charter and may be war crimes. Just Security, 1 abr. 2026. Disponível em: https://www.justsecurity.org/135423/professors-letter-international-law-iran-war/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
DAVIES, S.; PETTERSSON, T.; ÖBERG, M. Organized violence 1989-2022, and the return of conflict between states. Journal of Peace Research, v. 60, n. 4, 2023. DOI: 10.1177/00223433231185169.
DAVIES, S.; PETTERSSON, T.; SOLLENBERG, M.; ÖBERG, M. Organized violence 1989-2024, and the challenges of identifying civilian victims. Journal of Peace Research, v. 62, n. 4, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/00223433251345636.
DEEKS, A. S. Unwilling or unable. Virginia Journal of International Law, v. 52, n. 3, p. 483-550, 2012.
DINSTEIN, Y. War, aggression and self-defence. 6. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
FROWEIN, J. A.; KRISCH, N. Article 39. In: SIMMA, B. (Ed.). The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. p. 717-729.
FULLER, L. L. The morality of law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964.
GLENNON, M. J. Limits of law, prerogatives of power. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
GRANT, T. D. Annexation of Crimea. American Journal of International Law, v. 109, n. 1, p. 68-95, 2015.
HENKIN, L. How nations behave: law and foreign policy. 2. ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.
HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY. Israel/US-Iran conflict 2026: background and UK response. Briefing Paper CBP-10521. London, 24 abr. 2026. Disponível em: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10521/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON KOSOVO. The Kosovo report. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION; IBA HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTE. The Israel-US-Iran conflict. [Statement]. 11 mar. 2026. Disponível em: https://www.ibanet.org/The-Israel-US-Iran-conflict. Acesso em: maio 2026.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States). Judgment. ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14. The Hague: ICJ, 1986.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Advisory Opinion. ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226. The Hague: ICJ, 1996.
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION. Draft conclusions on peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). UN Doc A/77/10. New York: United Nations, 2022.
JENNINGS, R. Y. The Caroline and McLeod cases. American Journal of International Law, v. 32, n. 1, p. 82-99, 1938.
JURIST. Sliding toward aggression: America’s Venezuela campaign and the unraveling of international law. JURIST, 3 jan. 2026a. Disponível em: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/01/sliding-toward-aggression-americas-venezuela-campaign-and-the-unraveling-of-international-law/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
JURIST. The legal case against Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela. JURIST, 29 jan. 2026b. Disponível em: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/01/the-legal-case-against-trumps-military-intervention-in-venezuela/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
KUSHI, S.; TOFT, M. D. Introducing the Military Intervention Project: a new dataset on US military interventions, 1776-2019. Journal of Conflict Resolution, v. 67, n. 4, p. 752-779, 2023.
MUELLER, J. Retreat from doomsday: the obsolescence of major war. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
OHCHR. Venezuela: US military strikes on Venezuelan vessels violate international law, UN experts warn. UN Human Rights Office, 21 out. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2025/10/mil-251021-ohchr01.htm. Acesso em: maio 2026.
OUIMET, M. J. The rise and fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
PALMER, G. et al. The MID5 dataset, 2011-2014: procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science, v. 39, n. 4, p. 470-482, 2022. DOI: 10.1177/0738894221995743.
RUSTAD, S. A. et al. Conflict trends 1946-2024. Oslo: PRIO Paper, 2025.
RUYS, T. “Armed attack” and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
SHANY, Y.; COHEN, A. The international community at a crossroads over Iran. Just Security, 6 mar. 2026. Disponível em: https://www.justsecurity.org/133292/international-law-crossroads/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
SIMMA, B. NATO, the UN, and the use of force. European Journal of International Law, v. 10, n. 1, p. 1-22, 1999.
SOF NEWS. Epic Fury Update, April 19, 2026. SOF News, 19 abr. 2026. Disponível em: https://sof.news/middle-east/epic-fury-19april2026/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
TAMS, C. J. The use of force against terrorists. European Journal of International Law, v. 20, n. 2, p. 359-397, 2009.
THAKUR, R. The United Nations, peace and security. 2. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
THE CONVERSATION. Were the US actions in Venezuela legal under international law? An expert explains. The Conversation, 2026. Disponível em: https://theconversation.com/were-the-us-actions-in-venezuela-legal-under-international-law-an-expert-explains-272684. Acesso em: maio 2026.
THE TIMES OF ISRAEL. US, Israel defend strikes on Iran as lawful at heated UN Security Council meeting. The Times of Israel, 1 mar. 2026. Disponível em: https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-israel-defend-strikes-on-iran-as-lawful-at-heated-un-security-council-meeting/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Resolution 60/1: 2005 World Summit Outcome. New York, 24 out. 2005.
UN SECRETARY-GENERAL. Statement to the emergency session of the Security Council. New York, 22 jun. 2025. Disponível em: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statements/2025-06-22/. Acesso em: maio 2026.
UN SECURITY COUNCIL. United States action in Venezuela puts sovereignty of states, international law at stake, many speakers tell Security Council. SC/16271. New York, 3 jan. 2026. Disponível em: https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16271.doc.htm. Acesso em: maio 2026.
UN SECURITY COUNCIL. Resolution 1973. New York, 17 mar. 2011.
VENEZUELA. Letter to the Security Council. S/2026/5. New York: UN Digital Library, 3 jan. 2026. Disponível em: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4097827. Acesso em: maio 2026.
WALTZ, K. N. Nuclear myths and political realities. American Political Science Review, v. 84, n. 3, p. 731-745, 1990.
WEIL, P. Towards relative normativity in international law? American Journal of International Law, v. 77, n. 3, p. 413-442, 1983.
WILMSHURST, E. The Chatham House Principles on the use of force. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, v. 55, n. 4, p. 963-972, 2006.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Lex Humana (ISSN 2175-0947)