The UN Youth Peace & Security Agenda & Youth in 2026: Domestic Accountability and U.S. Non-Profits
Introduction
The United Nations Youth, Peace & Security Agenda was adopted in response to growing recognition that young people are disproportionately affected by conflict while systematically excluded from decisions that shape war, peace, and security. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2250 explicitly affirms youth as “important and positive agents of change” (1) in conflict prevention and peacebuilding. However, current patterns of unilateral military intervention—especially by powerful states acting outside the UN Charter framework—undermine the very legal and political conditions necessary for meaningful youth participation.
The January 2026 U.S. military intervention in Venezuela highlights this contradiction. Although it was presented domestically as a security and law-enforcement operation, the action sparked widespread concern among UN member states and independent UN experts about violations of sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibition against the use of force. These concerns are not isolated reactions but reflect a broader legality crisis that directly involves the UN YPS Agenda. Specifically, how youth are recognized as active stakeholders in prevention and active participation in decision-making mechanisms, from local to global processes. As we discuss the current systemic gaps in international mechanisms, we must not forget the determined youth already holding local peace and decision-making positions across the United States and the globe through non-profit spaces. Thus, understanding the consequences of foreign policy through a global-to-local lens ensures that youth are actively recognized as partners in conflict prevention, accountability, and peacebuilding.
Historical Continuity and the Normalization of Intervention
Scholarly literature situates contemporary U.S. actions in Venezuela within a long history of U.S. interventions in Latin America - many aimed to shape political outcomes and secure strategic interests. Historical analyses document repeated military and covert interventions throughout the twentieth century, including occupations, coups, and invasions, which were justified by shifting security narratives but resulted in lasting institutional fragility and social disruption across Latin America (2).
The 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama is often cited as a precedent for modern interventionist policies, despite the devastating legacy left behind. While initially justified as ‘a necessary response’ to crime and instability, later research has shown the invasion’s serious impact on civilians and its lasting effects on sovereignty and governance (3). Comparative studies draw clear parallels between Panama and Venezuela, highlighting how justifications for regime change continue to evolve within new legal and rhetorical contexts (4).
From a UN Youth Peace and Security perspective, this historical continuity is critical. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2419 (5) calls on states to address the “structural drivers of conflict affecting youth.” Recurrent intervention constitutes such a driver, embedding instability across generations and eroding youth trust in both national and international institutions.
International Law, Sovereignty, and UN Member State Responses
International law prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization under the UN Charter. In response to the 2026 Venezuela intervention, numerous UN member states reaffirmed these principles during an emergency United Nations Security Council session, warning that unilateral action undermines the rules-based international order (6).
Statements from UN Council members emphasized that capturing or removing a sitting head of state by force constitutes a violation of sovereignty and risks destabilizing global peace and security (7). China, South Africa, and multiple Global Majority countries explicitly framed the intervention as an erosion of international norms, rather than an isolated security measure (8).
Independent UN human rights experts similarly condemned the action as an unlawful use of force, warning that normalization of such conduct weakens the universality of international law and creates dangerous precedents for future conflicts (9). These assessments align with longstanding International Court of Justice jurisprudence, including Nicaragua v. United States (10), which affirms that coercive intervention and regime change violate customary international law.
Social Cohesion, Multilateral Trust, and Youth Pathways
Beyond legal doctrine, unilateral interventions fracture international social cohesion. The UN YPS Agenda is premised on collective security and preventive diplomacy; however, repeated disregard for multilateral processes fuels polarization between states and deepens mistrust in global governance institutions. This erosion disproportionately affects youth, who rely on multilateral cooperation to address transnational challenges such as climate change, displacement, and economic inequality.
For young people in intervention-affected states, the impacts are immediate and material: disrupted education systems, restricted civic space, economic precarity, and political disenfranchisement. For youth globally, the consequences are structural. When international law appears selectively enforced, legal norms lose legitimacy, and participation risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive—directly undermining the commitments articulated in UNSCR 2535 (11) regarding implementation and accountability.
Neo-Colonial Dynamics and Intergenerational Harm
Contemporary interventions increasingly reflect neo-colonial governance patterns, characterized by external decision-making, resource-driven geopolitics, and asymmetric accountability. Venezuela’s strategic oil reserves, combined with great-power competition involving Russia and China, situate the intervention within broader geopolitical contests that subordinate self-determination to strategic dominance.
This environment reproduces colonial logics under modern legal and security rhetoric. Youth in the so-called Global North inherit systems in which political futures are externally shaped, while those responsible face limited consequences. Such dynamics stand in direct contradiction to the YPS Agenda’s emphasis on dignity, inclusion, and intergenerational justice.
Accountability Gaps and Youth as Precedent
Formal accountability mechanisms under international law remain structurally constrained when applied to powerful states. Jurisdictional limitations, veto power, and political pressure frequently prevent judicial remedies. However, the absence of enforcement does not negate the law; rather, it shifts accountability into normative and political domains.
UNSCR 2535 recognizes the importance of civic space and youth participation in sustaining peace. Youth and civil society actors function as norm entrepreneurs by documenting violations, shaping public narratives, and maintaining legal memory. Historically, many now-entrenched norms—including decolonization and the prohibition of apartheid—were preserved through sustained advocacy by civil society long before formal enforcement mechanisms emerged.
The Path Forward for U.S. Non-Profits
U.S.-based non-profits occupy a critical intermediary position between domestic governance and global accountability and therefore bear heightened responsibility under the Youth, Peace & Security Agenda. Moving forward, these organizations must transition from reactive advocacy to structural engagement, leveraging their proximity to policymakers, funders, and media to challenge unilateral uses of force, defend congressional and multilateral oversight, and elevate youth-led peacebuilding as a legitimate security strategy. This requires sustained investment in youth legal literacy and policy fluency, support for transnational youth coalitions in intervention-affected contexts, and explicit use of YPS frameworks to hold the United States accountable to its international commitments. Equally important is confronting organizational positionality by resisting extractive partnerships and redistributing resources, platforms, and decision-making authority to youth directly impacted by the intervention. Aligned with UN Security Council Resolutions 2250, 2419, and 2535, U.S. nonprofits can help transform youth from passive recipients of the consequences of foreign policy into recognized partners in conflict prevention, accountability, and peacebuilding.
Conclusion
The United Nations Youth, Peace & Security Agenda offers a normative and practical framework for resisting the normalization of unilateral force and rebuilding international legality. When powerful states undermine international law, young people bear the longest and deepest consequences—but they also possess the greatest stake in transformation. By centering youth as agents of accountability, norm preservation, and peacebuilding, the international community can move toward a future grounded not in coercion, but in legality, dignity, and shared responsibility.
Bibliography
AHarvard University, ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America, “United States Interventions,” 2020.
Zinn Education Project, “U.S. Invasion of Panama,” 1989.
Responsible Statecraft, “From Panama to Venezuela: The Enduring Logic of U.S. Intervention,” 2026.
United Nations Security Council, SC/16271, “Security Council Meets on Situation in Venezuela,” 5 January 2026.
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “UN Experts Condemn US Aggression Against Venezuela,” January 2026.
UN Security Council Resolution 2250 (2015).
UN Security Council Resolution 2419 (2018).
UN Security Council Resolution 2535 (2020).
International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986.
Direct Links for convenience/ context:
https://www.democracynow.org/2026/1/6/alexander_avina
https://www.ctpublic.org/2026-01-04/venezuela-is-the-latest-in-the-u-s-s-long-history-of-interventions-in-latin-america
https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/united-states-interventions/
https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/invasion-of-panama/
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/panama-invasion-venezuela/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/45316500
https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=histstud_theseshttps://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/un-experts-condemn-us-aggression-against-venezuela
https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16271.doc.htm
(1) UN Security Council Resolution 2250 (2015).
(2) Harvard University, ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America, “United States Interventions,” 2020. https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/united-states-interventions/.
(3) Zinn Education Project, “U.S. Invasion of Panama,” 1989. https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/invasion-of-panama/.
(4) Responsible Statecraft, “From Panama to Venezuela: The Enduring Logic of U.S. Intervention,” 2026. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/panama-invasion-venezuela/.
(5) UN Security Council Resolution 2419 (2018).
(6) United Nations Security Council, SC/16271, “Security Council Meets on Situation in Venezuela,” 5 January 2026.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “UN Experts Condemn US Aggression Against Venezuela,” January 2026. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/un-experts-condemn-us-aggression-against-venezuela.
(10) International Court of Justice, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986.
(11) UN Security Council Resolution 2535 (2020).
