A Fragile Truce Between Political Calculation and the Illusion of Peace
Abstract: The evolution of the Venezuelan political landscape has led to the Nobel Prize — perhaps even in the sense Trump once called for, though not literally. As political and military tensions with the U.S. build over drug trafficking — with a naval blockade along the coast and the CIA authorized to carry out operations there — awarding the Nobel Prize to María Corina Machado, the opposition leader, is quite a move.
Keywords: #marinamachado #trump #USforeignpolitics #nobelprize #donaldtrump #venezuela #niclasmaduro #cristinadisilvio #ethicasocietas #geopolitics #internationalwlaw #cristinadisilvio #ethicasocietas #ethicasocietasrivista #scientificreview #ethicasocietasupli
From time to time, in a fractured world order, the international community pauses to reflect on the meaning of moral authority. Rarely, and often too late. But when it does, it speaks through symbols. The awarding of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado is not merely a tribute to the personal courage of a political woman: it is a silent explosion in the weary heart of multilateral diplomacy. Behind the seemingly disarmed gesture of the Norwegian Committee lies a deep tension: can a prize unsettle the established geometry of a regime? More importantly, can it restore a voice to a people who have been systematically silenced?
Today, Venezuela is more than a national crisis: it is a borderline case. It is where the theoretical foundations of sovereignty, representation, and consent are bent to the point of paradox. It is the place where legality turns into an empty procedure, where law is spoken in the language of power. Yet, amid this opaque scenario, a recognition arrives that appears to break the rhythm of resignation. But are we sure it is enough? María Corina Machado does not simply represent political opposition: she embodies, in Venezuelan public discourse, the figure of antithesis. Disqualified multiple times from electoral competition, delegitimized by domestic courts, subjected constantly to direct and indirect intimidation, she has become—in the international narrative—the very face of democratic resistance. But international law today, more than ever, is a system of complex geometries.
Can a woman excluded from institutional politics be deemed the legitimate representative of a national project? And can international recognition of a leader unacknowledged domestically be read as an explicit or implicit attempt to redefine political legitimacy itself? Ultimately, who holds the power to define democracy? This is a well-known yet often ignored question: contemporary international law carries a dual nature. On one side, the still firm principle—enshrined in conventions—of non-interference; on the other, the duty to protect fundamental rights when the state transforms into a repressive apparatus. In Venezuela’s case, this ambiguity explodes.
For years, international bodies, special rapporteurs, and fact-finding missions have documented torture, systematic repression, arbitrary detentions, and the politicization of the judiciary. Yet, the multilateral system seems paralyzed, as if the abuses were no longer sufficient to justify action. In this context, the Nobel becomes an extreme act of speech: it breaks apparent neutrality and takes sides. But in doing so, it risks closing doors. Polarizing. Locking Machado into the role of martyr, and Maduro into that of besieged. Where does the defense of freedom end, and where does—willingly or not—political intervention begin? It is precisely in this ambivalence that the geopolitical meaning of law is played out today. It is legitimate, at this point, to ask: what tools does the international order actually have at its disposal to intervene? The International Criminal Court has long since opened a preliminary investigation into Venezuela. But the timelines of The Hague do not coincide with those of real life: while dossiers pile up, dissidents disappear, elections empty out, and misery deepens.
Could the Nobel act as a catalyst? Perhaps. It could heighten attention on certain cases, intensify political pressure, accelerate judicial dynamics. But a prize is not evidence. It is not a verdict. It is not a resolution. At best, it is a contained cry. And here the paradox becomes evident: we have built an international legal system capable of identifying injustice, but not of stopping it in time. Law, when it arrives, often arrives too late—or without force.
This is not a rhetorical question. It is the question that quietly imposes itself on anyone familiar with the interplay of law and power. What happens if, in the coming months, the Nobel fails to open new political spaces? If Machado is further marginalized? If the Venezuelan regime—as it already is—closes embassies, cuts diplomatic channels, and strengthens ties with geopolitical allies hostile to the West? And again: what if the opposition itself cannot seize the moment, divided internally and unable to propose an inclusive national project? The risk is that the Nobel, from a promise, turns into a monument. From impetus into regret. Recent history, after all, is full of examples of international recognitions bestowed upon iconic figures who could not—or were unable to—lead their countries toward the hoped-for transition. A prize does not guarantee change. It declares it, hopes for it, invokes it. But real change remains in the hands of politics—and collective will.
Ultimately, the Machado case challenges the entire normative and value framework of our time. What is the purpose of international law if it cannot protect those who embody its highest principles? What credibility can a multilateral system claim if it recognizes the moral legitimacy of the opposition but cannot protect it or enforce even minimal conditions of legality? And above all: are we still able to distinguish, legally, between sovereignty and impunity? There is a question running through the Venezuelan saga like a fault line: can international justice intervene before law is buried by force? Or will it continue to function only as an archive of defeat? History rarely grants a second chance.
For Venezuela, the Nobel could be one. But for this to happen, precise conditions are necessary: a coherent and coordinated international mobilization; a strategy that does not exhaust itself in sanctions but offers prospects for real transition; a constant accompaniment of internal democratic forces—not to replace them, but to protect them. Above all, clarity is needed: symbolic recognition, if not followed by action, risks becoming an anesthetic. And the Venezuelan people no longer have time for anesthetics. They need choices. Space. Tools. It is not Machado who must prove something. It is the international order. It is law itself, in its claim to efficacy. It is our collective capacity to recognize that peace—the real kind—does not arise from awards, but from transformed balances of power. And to transform them, courage, coherence, and political will are required.
The Nobel has been awarded. Now, history must decide if it will make something of it.
LASTEST CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR:
THE SUMMIT THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN AND THE LAW THAT HANGS IN THE BALANCE
IRAN, BETWEEN POWER AND FEAR: INTERVIEW WITH DAVOOD KARIM
THE RELASE OF THE HOSTAGES: STRATEGIC OPENING OR FRAGILE ILLUSION?
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS ON GEOPOLITICS
«IL 7 OTTOBRE DEL 2023 RIMANE E RIMARRÀ NELLE COSCIENZE COME UNA PAGINA TURPE DELLA STORIA»
SUPERINTELLIGENZA: LA CORSA GEOPOLITICA E IL PARADOSSO NORMATIVO
SOCIETÀ, POLITICA E GEOPOLITICA AL TEMPO DEI SOCIAL NETWORK
SUPERINTELLIGENZA: LA CORSA GEOPOLITICA E IL PARADOSSO NORMATIVO
LATEST 5 CONTRIBUTIONS
WHAT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SAYS ABOUT OUR MAGAZINE
THOSE VESTS ON THE GROUND. BEYOND DUTY, BEYOND DEATH
THE FUTURE OF FINANCE: THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON BUSINESS VALUATION
THE ORIGINS OF THE ANTI-JEWISH MYTH IN THE GREEK WORLD
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND BIAS: LIMITS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non.profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2025 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0