At a YLS event last Tuesday, Daniela Urosa and José Ignacio Hernández discussed the possibility and potential challenges of a democratic transition in Venezuela.
Staff Writer, The Buckley Beacon
Last Tuesday, the Latin American Series at Yale Law School hosted a lecture by law professors Daniela Urosa and José Ignacio Hernández titled, “Venezuela: What Next?” The lecture discussed the challenges that Venezuela faces in the wake of recent U.S. intervention and the potential for Venezuela to transition to a democratic form of governance.
Urosa is a professor at the Boston College Law School and the Founding Director of the Boston College Law International Human Rights Practicum. Hernández is a non-resident expert at the Americas Program in the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He also served as the special attorney general of Venezuela between 2019 and 2020. Both professors are experts in Venezuelan law and politics, particularly Venezuela’s transition to authoritarianism over the past few decades.
On January 3rd, 2026, the United States conducted a military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who had been indicted for narco-terrorism and drug trafficking by the Department of Justice. Critics charge Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, with turning the country from a functioning democracy to an authoritarian petrostate, triggering one of the largest refugee crises in the 21st century. Venezuela is now led by Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, who has softened Venezuela’s anti-American stance.
Urosa and Hernández contend that while Delcy Rodríguez exhibits the same willingness to manipulate the constitution as Maduro, the recent political change has still brought hope for a democratic transition.
According to Hernández, Rodríguez went to the Constitutional Chamber of Venezuela, which ordered her to serve as acting President in Maduro’s absence, on the same day of the U.S. special military operation. “Imagine, your house is on fire, and instead of calling the firefighters, you call your lawyers,” Hernández said. “It doesn’t make sense…. This is basically the same abusive constitutionalism that Maduro implemented to stay in power.”
While Rodríguez has successfully retained the regime’s hold over the country, there are signs of a reduction in the regime’s oppressive tactics. “There are some very preliminary steps of political liberalization,” Hernández reported. “Approximately 15 percent of the political prisoners have been released. Of course, that is insufficient, but for Venezuela, that is a huge number.”
The speakers added that Venezuela’s democratic transition requires international intervention. “It seems that the United States seems to believe that democratization and stabilization are rivals. I highly disagree with that,” Hernández argued. “We have to take this situation as an opportunity to advance democratization in Venezuela.”
Urosa agreed with the importance of intervention, stating that “it is practically impossible to restore democracy from within the constitutional framework.”
Responding to a question on the perceived hostility of U.S. leaders to initiating a democratic transition, the speakers differed on whether current U.S. policy can bring about substantive political change. Urosa was skeptical, stating that “the big issue is not that we have a third party; it’s that we have a third party with its own agenda.”
In contrast, Hernández explained how even if a stable supply of oil was the sole objective of the Trump Administration, democracy would be a necessary byproduct. “To really increase Venezuela oil production to say 3 million barrels today, Venezuela needs democracy, transparency, and legitimacy,” he stated, “You cannot have oil production without institutions, and with institutions, you need something similar to the rule of law.”
Both speakers, however, resisted the idea that the capture of Maduro was imprudent because of considerations of international law. “This is a case study to think about how insufficient international law is,” Urosa emphasized. “Venezuelans tried all the international mechanisms for the protections of human rights, and all of them failed.”
Hernández went further, stating that “You cannot violate what simply did not exist as a fact. Venezuela did not have any sovereignty. Maduro was not just an authoritarian leader but also engaged in the worst types of human rights violations—torture, killing.” In the past, the Maduro regime had brutally tortured political dissidents, a practice widely publicized by journalists.
Concluding the event, the speakers reiterated their cautious optimism at the prospect of democratic change in Venezuela. “Sooner or later, Delcy will be at a crossroads,” Hernández said, at which point she may be forced by political pressure to choose democratization.
This lecture was made possible by the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund, which supports programs at the Yale Law School.