The US President confirmed a ‘large scale strike’ on January 03, 2026, in Venezuela that resulted into the capture and extraction from the country of President Maduro, who previously hold vital leadership titles as Minister for foreign affairs and Vice President to Venezuela between 2006 and 2013.

His wife, Cilia Flores, who has also served as the President of the National Assembly, Attorney General and Member of the National Assembly between 2006 to 2017 was also captured. The two have been charged with drugs and weapons offences. Maduro is specifically charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the US.  

Some jurisdictions, at different occasions have condemned the act as extremely serious aggression perpetrated by the US government against Venezuela’s government. The UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has hesitated to pronounce the UK’s stand on the same, as he is yet to speak to allies and get all the facts before coming to a decision about the consequences in relation to the action. He has, however, affirmed his commitment as a lifelong advocate of international law and compliance with the same. China has strongly condemned the action, and repeatedly expressed grave concerns over US sanctions, blockade, and threats of force against Venezuela.  

Global reaction

The UN Security Council hold an emergency meeting in New York to deliberate on the same, it is not surprising that Council members are split over whether the US move upholds accountability or undermines a foundational principle of international order. Argentina and Paraguay praised the operation, arguing that the action was exceptional and justified on the basis of US law enforcement operation and not war against Venezuela. Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Panama, Russia and China, among others warned that the action risks normalizing unilateral force and eroding state sovereignty.

International law is being put to the test, not on the question as to whether it is effective or not, but of the status quo on superiority complex within its subjects. To begin with, the bedrock of State immunity is grounded on the par in parem non habet imperium which asserts that an equal has no authority over an equal. Simply, one sovereign state cannot exercise jurisdiction over another since they are legally equal entities. The likes of US, Russia, and Israel have recently been recorded not considerate of this restrictive immunity theory, and have exercised powers against Venezuela, Ukraine, and Palestine among other equals.

Just like diverse approaches have emerged in the UNSC emergency meeting, scholars have also adjudged the action differently. The head of Chatham House’s International Law Programme, Prof. Marc Weller, has argued that justifications on the action are hard to see. He states that;

“It is difficult to conceive of possible legal justifications for transporting Maduro to the US, or for the attacks. There is no UN Security Council mandate that might authorize force. Clearly, this was not an instance of a US act of self-defence triggered by a prior or ongoing armed attack by Venezuela.”

On the other hand, a senior legal and constitutional expert, Michael O’Neill, argues that according to Article II of the US Constitution, the US President is granted authority to ensure that laws are faithfully executed. He further mentions that the US has not recognized Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate leader, undermining his claim to sovereign immunity.

Difference in critique in matters such as these is not new in the international community, the debates rage long due to varied approaches influenced by states’ interests, region, and geopolitical groupings among others. The shifting ecosystem of international is arguably rooted in the patterns of difference, dominance, and disruption that affect how subjects of international law understand, approach, enforce and adjudge their own actions, and/or those of other actors.

Precedent on International Law?

In this discussion, as afore alluded, focus will be on dominance, specifically the question of how political powers and economic influence at the global discourse lead to disproportionate influence, misguided exercise of authority and prejudicial sanctions that benefit the most powerful actors in the space.  

Trump administration’s unilateral act continues to set precedent and normalization of violation of international law in the era of shifting geopolitical power, and rising nationalism. The action confirms the sphere of influence and autonomy that had started to fade since the end of Cold War. It recalls not just Panama in 1989 but also Nicaragua or the Dominican Republic in the 1910’s invasions to topple leaders US saw as threat to national security on similar allegations of drugs and weapons.

Due to national interests, US Courts have equally been moved to establish principles that consistently support that cause. The Ker-Frisbie doctrine holds that the US will exercise jurisdiction, irrespective of the means by which the body of the defendant was procured for trial.

As it stands, it is legally controversial, Article 2 of the UN Charter maintains that all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter offers an exception directed to self-defense from armed attacks, the narrowest of definitions will not guide a thoughtful common person to cocaine importation Conspiracy, and possession of machineguns and destructive devices as construing the threshold to an armed attack worthy of self-defense.

The political motive behind the apprehension of Maduro positions the action as an indirect instance towards pursuance of capitalistic exploitation of natural resources (oil in this context) available in Venezuela. Propaganda cites that the action could be a sigh of relief to Trump’s question of accountability from the Epstein files. Trump’s administration is expected to prove beyond reasonable doubts the charges against President Maduro and his wife in its own jurisdiction. The author is hesitant of the independence of the judiciary in the matter, but will wait for things to be seen as they are, justice seen to be done at most.

Just like the Trump’s administration, any jurisdiction should also be wary of Narco-Terrorism conspiracy and Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices. Thinking of this, especially from the militarism tech class, which is decidedly anti-peace and anti-human, jurisdictions mut have a vested interest in making arrest and extraction sound like it will solve problems that might arise out of the same, even if such actions actually exploit and deepens violations among equals.

It surely not a black and white issue, but it’s important that Nations ground their interests and protection within their values. Extra-territorial impacts of such nature, if explicitly proven, require prompt law enforcement actions. Now, the central question is how to separate the wheat from the chaff if indeed this is a journey any jurisdiction must embark upon. Definitely,it should not be Trump’s way.

As new issues continue to unfold on the same, Trump’s approach that Venezuela’s action to nationalize its oil industry in 1976 and 2017 amount to stealing is wrong. Hence the US cannot claim to take back what it rightfully owned. The UN Permanent Sovereignty over natural resources Resolution permits the exertion of state control over the natural resources.

This was applied when Venezuela took control over remaining foreign owned assets of US oil firms that were operating in the country. If infringed of her rights, the US had chances to institute a legal claim for violation of the bilateral investment agreements against Venezuela, connecting it to the current arrest and extraction increases ambiguity.

Maduro’s Fate

As of yet, the US cannot extend Maduro the immunities that automatically apply to a serving president when travelling abroad, he did not travel, he was arrested, hence this is out of context. Consistent, and long-standing practices by states in international law (jus cogens) do not necessarily set forth national interests as a priority, that way global challenges could hardly be addressed. Emphasis should be on the rise of norms and processes reflecting international community values rather than individual state interests.

What Trump’s administration has done is a practical deterioration of sovereign equality of states. The practice is now normalized by powerful states with attacks congruence with the realities of inequality in international politics, tension with ideals of democracy and human rights, weakening the principles of nonintervention and immunity within the international community.

The arrest and extraction of President Maduro is unjustifiable, the UN General Assembly has made significant strides after continuous debates to define what would amount to aggression. The Definition of Aggression General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 mentions among other things, unlawful use of force by a state against another state, which the US did, with stats of about forty (40) killed personnel during the military operation.

Setting a precedent of this nature exerts threats to peaceful co-existence within the international community. There is an existing Extradition procedure between the US and Venezuela in cases related to finance, politics, or transnational crime.

However, Article 69 of the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela states that extradition of Venezuelan citizens is prohibited, even if there is an existing international agreement. This means that a citizen located within the country’s territory cannot be handed over to a foreign state.

Despite the existence of Bilateral and Multilateral arrangements on extradition including Extradition Treaty between Venezuela and the USA (1922); American Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (1992); and Multilateral agreements within the framework of the Organization of American States (OAS) among others in Latin America, Europe, and Asia, Venezuela was not at a position to surrender the Head of State to the US jurisdiction even when an attempt for extradition request was made at least for the alleged crimes.

On the other hand, US courts have jurisdiction over Maduro and his wife, irrespective of the prejudicial manner in which their appearance to the jurisdiction was procured.  The question of violation of international law and lack of congressional authority do not affect the court’s jurisdiction. As mentioned earlier, the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine justifies the suit, parties’ persuasion of the bench will inform the public of justice, of the independence of the judiciary on the matter, we wait for the reasons for the decisions, yet hands remain tied on whether fairness will prevail or powers will interfere, like it already has, with the due process of law.

Poor political reaction motivated by the new world order-the hunger for domination in the multipolar system, the super powers rivalry for power in a fragmented international landscape poses threat to peace and interference, it is therefore viable to conclude that Maduro’s apprehension is in the cause to “make America great again”.

Lastly, despite concerns about sovereignty, implied extradition treaty obligations, and international law principles. The 160+ years long Ker-Frisbie Doctrine has been applied broadly shielding prosecutions from challenges based on extraterritorial apprehensions irrespective of how the person was brought before the court’s jurisdiction, and automatically waives the immunity accorded to the defendant.

Developing countries must trade carefully in a community where economy is militarized and democracy is blended with authoritarianism, as well as free market capitalism annexed to liberal democratic ideals at stake with less respect to international norms.

Juma Erassy is a Lawyer, a youth advocate, and a budding scholar. He lectures Law at Tumaini University Makumira, Arusha, and programs officer at MS Training Centre for Development Cooperation. He is available at erassyj@mstcdc.or.tz. These are the writer’s own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of The Chanzo. Do you want to publish in this space? Contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com for further inquiries.