Venezuela, the United States, and the performativity of the non-intervention norm in international relations

Does the 2026 United States intervention in Venezuela mark the death of the non-intervention norm in International Relations? Drawing on practice theory and contemporary social norms scholarship, we argue that the episode is analytically significant not because it violated non-intervention, but because it abandoned the performative practices associated with the norm, through which such violations have historically been rendered intelligible and contestable. We develop a framework that distinguishes between norm performativity and institutional robustness, generating four ideal types of norms: embedded, ritualised, residual, and defunct. Applying this framework, we show that while non-intervention remains institutionally robust, Washington’s neglect of the usual vocabulary and diplomatic practices surrounding the intervention marks a shift in its position from embedded to residual engagement with the norm. We conclude by discussing the implications of this change for both social norms theory and the practice of non-intervention as one of the key pillars of the contemporary global order.