A legal and security analysis of the Maduro Case
ILSA-Centuria Journal Collaboration Series
By Leon Paladinić* and Sophia Angelina Baerend*
Abstract
This paper examines the Venezuelan crisis primarily through the focus of international law and security, with specific attention on the legal principles of state sovereignty, non-intervention, the prohibition on the use of force, and humanitarian intervention. The article argues that the crisis in Venezuela became not only a political and humanitarian emergency, but also a major legal controversy that tested the limits of the modern international legal order. As economic collapse, political repression, and mass migration increased greatly under Nicolás Maduro, international governments increasingly debated over whether foreign involvement could be legally justified under doctrines such as humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), or whether such actions would violate Venezuela’s sovereignty under the United Nations Charter.
This analysis examines whether the United States’ reported capture of Nicolás Maduro inside Venezuela was lawful under international law. Although the United States may argue that the operation was connected to criminal prosecution and national security, the stronger legal position is that the operation likely violated Venezuela’s sovereignty unless justified by valid consent, self-defense, or UN Security Council authorization. The operation also raises concerns under the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force, the limits of extraterritorial enforcement, and the immunity normally given to sitting heads of state. Overall, serious criminal allegations may justify prosecution, but they do not automatically justify a unilateral military operation inside another state’s territory.
Introduction
The system of modern international relations is built largely on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty, which emphasizes territorial acknowledgement, political independence, and the right to govern a state without external influence. These principles are reinforced by the United Nations Charter yet are continuously challenged by debates over international security and foreign intervention.
The relationship between autonomy and security is immense. Wars have been fought, organizations have been founded, and policies have been published due to this association. These elements of international security aim to reduce conflict and violence by discouraging violations of borders and limiting foreign intervention. Such violations are acts against sovereignty. This remains a pillar of the international system, as it provides legal equality among countries, helping to foster and maintain order in international relations. The UN Charter reinforces those same principles through agreements that prohibit the use of force against an acknowledged territory, as well as limit foreign intervention.
However, issues often arise when sovereignty conflicts with the humanitarian or ethical priorities of countries that believe providing aid can help to prevent human rights violations and other atrocities. In such cases, debates over whether foreign involvement is justified begin to emerge.
Venezuela before Nicolas Maduro: Hugo Chaves, the Bolivarian Revolution, and American tensions
Tensions between sovereignty, human rights, and foreign intervention are not new to Latin America. The election of Hugo Chavez as president, Nicolas Maduro’s predecessor, marked the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution, a socialist political movement. The revolution aimed to improve living conditions for the population and prioritized adult literacy, education, and healthcare (Ebsco, 2021).
While the revolution aimed to improve Venezuela, relations were not improved with the United States, for a multitude of reasons. The anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist stance of the Bolivarian Revolution clashed with the United States on matters such as economic independence, ideology, oil, and other natural resources, as well as national security (Peterson, 2025).
As part of Chavez’s goal to improve the Venezuelan economy, United States-supported economic and trade agreements were dismantled to help promote regional trade and economic cooperation. This conflicted with the economic interests of the United States and reduced bilateral trade cooperation.
Economic tensions between the two countries became even more significant due the Venezuela’s major role in the international oil industry. Venezuela houses the largest proven oil reserves in the world. By cutting economic ties to the United States and nationalizing vital industries (such as oil), it removed a geographically convenient and large supplier from the States. American companies (such as Chevron or ExxonMobil) had also invested billions into the oil industry, and the United States government aimed to protect those investments, as well as their sector of the American economy (Hajdari, 2025).
Disputes over business, however, did not end there. Radical anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist ideologies, which were crucial to the Bolivarian Revolution, strongly went against the capitalistic and perceived imperial influence, which conflicted with the United States capitalist economic system. The clash in ideals allowed for further tension between the former allies. The American distrust for the revolution and Hugo Chavez can also be linked to the fact that only eight years prior, America had been in DEFCON2, meaning that they believed nuclear war was imminent and inevitable. Although the Cold War was over, the United States feared a “Pink Tide” and that Hugo Chávez’s anti-imperialist, socialist agenda would evolve into communism (Schrama, 2018). This shift to socialism was not an isolated incident, and represented a broader regional shift towards a more left-wing government, making Venezuela a part of a larger ideological movement.
Venezuela under Hugo Chávez further increased tensions with the United States by reducing financial ties, and strengthening alliances with countries such as Russia and China. Although this is not officially cited as the reason that Venezuela was declared a threat to national security in 2007, Venezuela’s allies are believed to have elevated its level of perceived threat to Washington (FDD Action, 2025).
Although Hugo Chávez’s policies changed Venezuela’s relationship with the United States and strengthened the Bolivarian Revolution internally, they also made Venezuela heavily dependent on its own oil supply and vulnerable to economic instability caused by oil price fluctuations. Lack of economic diversification, due to oil being roughly 95% of export revenue, weakened the nation’s resilience. The economy’s leaning (almost) solely on one industry created a “petrostate”, meaning that government income was deeply reliant on oil and gas and economic and political power were concentrated to the elites instead of the government (Roy and Cheatham, 2024).
These same vulnerabilities which allowed Venezuela to enter such a state flourished under Maduro, whose presidency saw economic collapse and political upheaval. This event caused the largest humanitarian crisis and exodus (7.9 million individuals having left Venezuela since 2014 (UNHCR, n.d.) and 73.2% of the population living in poverty as of 2024) (Statista, 2025) in Latin American history.
Principle of non-intervention in international relations
The immense severity of the crisis raised questions within the international actors regarding matters of state authority and foreign involvement: Should other countries intervene if the matter turned to a crisis of human rights, or would doing so be a direct violation of the very definition of sovereignty?
The principle of non-intervention is defined by the Princeton Encyclopedia as “the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” (Wood, n.d.) and “that a state should not otherwise intervene in a dictatorial way in the internal affairs of other states.”
Historically, Latin America had repeatedly been the victim of the absence of such a non-intervention principle, as they were frequently colonized by European and (later) United States colonial powers (Helal, 2025). In the 20th century alone, the United States intervened within the Dominican Republic three times, Cuba four times, Honduras four times, Nicaragua four times, and Panama three times, amongst many others (Hill, 2026).
Due to this history and past trauma to the region, many other Latin American countries were hesitant to assist with the United States-led external action due to a fear of falling back on the same historical habits of forced intervention. Further, neighboring countries such as Brazil or Colombia feared actions that could lead to even more instability or military attention from the United States (Relief Web, 2019).
This hesitation was exacerbated by the preexisting legal mechanisms put in place after the creation of the United Nations in 1945 and the Organization of American States (OAS) two years later (Farer, n.d.). Both organizations emphasized equal sovereignty of states and the significance of avoiding unilateral military action. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, except in the case of self-defense or authorization by the UN Security Council (Delanis, 1979).
For many Latin American countries and governments, supporting intervention without the agreement of foreign governments risked undermining those necessary postwar constructs that smaller and less powerful countries relied on for protection. As a result, governments who condemned and publicly persecuted human rights violations or political repression within other countries remained hesitant about supporting direct military involvement.
Simultaneously, the debate around nonintervention revealed growing tensions surrounding international relations between respect for territorial autonomy and respect for human rights. By the late 20th century, humanitarian crises increasingly challenged the interpretation of state sovereignty as absolute rule (van der Horst, 2023). Some policymakers argued that when governments failed to protect their own citizens or actively committed acts against them, the international community had a moral right to respond (Garriges, n.d.). Others warned that humanitarian justifications could just as easily be used as a loophole by powerful countries seeking to expand their own territory, under the guise of protecting human rights.
Consequently, the crisis in Venezuela evolved from a regional political dispute to a larger global argument over the balance of international law, human rights national sovereignty, and the legitimacy of a nations rate to intervene.
Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
With the sheer degree that the Venezuelan crisis had risen to, becoming one of the most severe political and humanitarian emergencies in the Western world, years of economic ruin, political oppression, food and medicine shortages, and mass emigration have led to many individuals in the international community debating over whether humanitarian intervention or the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) could justify international intervention. The potential intervention of the United States, in particular, has made the Venezuelan crisis vital to understanding the controversies and nuances surrounding topics such as intervention on the basis of human rights.
Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of diplomatic or military measures by countries or international organizations to prevent human rights violations in another country. Although intervention has traditionally clashed with the concept of state authority, after such tragedies as the Rwandan genocide in 1994 (Adams, 2012), foreign governments developed the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, formally supported by the United Nations in 2005 (United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, n.d.)
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) posits that countries have a responsibility and a right to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a country fails to follow through with this, the United Nations may take collective action.
Supporters of applying the R2P to the crisis in Venezuela argue that the government under Nicolás Maduro has violated human rights multiple times, on an immense scale. Crimes such as repression of political dissent, arbitrary detention, torture, enforced disappearances, impunity, and attacks on the rights of expression have contributed to widespread suffering (Amnesty International, n.d.). More than seven million Venezuelans have fled the country, creating a massive displacement and refugee crisis. Some claim that, because the Venezuelan government has failed to protect its own citizens and has instead contributed to the crisis, the international community has a moral responsibility to intervene.
The United States became heavily involved in the crisis during the first Trump administration but had placed sanctions on Venezuela prior to the current president, including visa restrictions, asset blocking sanctions related to drug trafficking, forbidding the sale of any and all United States commercial arms to Venezuela, and a law requiring the president to impose sanctions on individuals deemed criminally responsible for “significant acts of violence, serious human rights abuses, or antidemocratic actions” (Seelke, 2026). The United States also recognized Maduro’s opposition, Juan Guaidó, as Venezuela’s legitimate president in 2019 and repeatedly stated that all options were under consideration, including military. American officials justified these statements and actions by emphasizing democracy and humanitarian concerns.
However, critics have opposed the possibility that the United States imposing sanctions would worsen the quality of life and deepen the poverty levels of the Venezuelan people (United Nations Human Rights, 2025). It is also noted that R2P is meant to be a multilateral process authorized by the United Nations Security Council, not absolute action decided by one country.
The Venezuelan crisis demonstrates both the appeal and difficulty of humanitarian and international intervention and R2P in execution. While the suffering of human rights creates strong ethical pressure for foreign action, disagreements in national self-governance and the consequences of intervention prevent unified agreement.
Reactions from Major Global Powers
Although the crisis of human rights violations created pressure on foreign governments to intervene, disagreements on self-governance and the potential consequences of intervention halted a unified agreement. Divisions became especially clear in the reactions of global powers to the United States’ intervention, as the opinions of global powers were shaped by strategic self-interests and concerns about international security.
In 2025, as the United States took a significant stance against Maduro, Russia strongly opposed their involvement and became one of Venezuela’s most significant allies. Vladimir Putin condemned the newly implemented American sanctions. Russia’s United Nations envoy, Vassily Nebenzia, called the sanctions “illegal” and “a real act of aggression,” even going on to say that the United States’s intervention could “become a template for future acts of force against Latin American states” (Aydogan, 2025).
Russia provided financial and military assistance as well as diplomatic support to Caracas. Moscow also had important economic interests in Venezuela’s oil sector through Russian energy companies located in Venezuela (Bayoumi and Magid, 2025). Through support of Maduro, Russia challenged United States influence in Latin America and demonstrated its power as a major state capable of resisting United States pressure or foreign policy.
Russia’s stance against United States intervention increasingly complicated the likelihood of a unified agreement and the stance within foreign governments, as well as the United Nations. As a result, the issue expanded beyond domestic politics into a broader international debate, involving more actors into the matter.
China also supported the Venezuelan government, although in a more reserved and finance-focused manner. China had invested billions into Venezuelan oil and infrastructure projects over several years. Chinese President Xi Jinping criticized unilateral United States sanctions and emphasized the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention (Ministry of Foreign Affairs People’s Republic of China, 2026). Although China reduced some financial support as Venezuela’s economy dwindled, diplomatic cooperation with Maduro’s government was continued. Such a response reflected broader foreign policy approaches by means of avoiding direct political conflict but protecting international strategic investments.
European countries displayed mixed reactions to the US led intervention. Nations such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany criticized Maduro’s government and recognized Juan Guaido as interim president in 2019 (Wintour, 2019). The EU called for free and fair elections while condemning human rights violations. However, European leaders generally avoided supporting military intervention, instead preferring negotiations and diplomatic pressure. Some European countries showed concern that aggressive United States policies could worsen the instability and increase emigration from Venezuela.
Overall, the lack of a unified opinion and response to the Venezuelan crisis evolved from a domestic political conflict into an international struggle. This highlighted vulnerabilities in disagreements between countries on the definitions of national self-correction, democracy, and global influence.
Security Implications for Latin America
The Venezuelan crisis has had major security implications for Latin America and continues to shape the region’s future stability. Venezuela’s political collapse, economic crisis, and humanitarian emergency created issues that transcended borders. Issues of mass emigration, organized crime, political instability, and foreign intervention have affected bordering countries and raised concerns of the long-term security of the entire region.
One of the most immediate consequences has been the mass emigration of people out of Venezuela to neighboring countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador. Although many governments have attempted to provide support and adapt, the abrupt population increase has placed immense pressure on the healthcare and housing systems, as well as education and labor markets (Gonzalez et al, 2021). In some areas, rising unemployment and social tension have increased public frustration and political instability.
The crisis has also contributed to the growth of organized crime and illegal armed groups (Rendon and Cohan, 2019). Weak border control and instability inside of Venezuela have allowed for criminal organizations to expand their activities into drug and human trafficking, illegal mining, and smuggling. Such groups include Colombian criminal gangs who have reportedly operated in Venezuelan territory, and especially near border regions (Relief Web, 2021). This has created security concerns for nearby countries, as well as complicated efforts to control violence and cross-border crime. Latin American governments increasingly fear that prolonged instability in Venezuela could turn parts of the country into criminal safe havens.
Another implication has been the rise of political polarization across Latin America (Kahn, 2024). The Venezuelan crisis drove a deeper fissure between ideological divisions between left-wing and right-wing governments. Some countries support the government of Nicolas Maduro, while others continue to back opposition movements and international pressure campaigns (such as that of the United States). Such disagreements weaken cross-country collaboration, making it more difficult for organizations such as the Organization of American States to coordinate a unified response. This crisis, therefore, not only affects Venezuela itself but also challenges regional diplomacy and unity.
There are also fears that outside interference in Venezuela could increase geopolitical tensions in the region. Future competition between major powers, especially since Russia, China, and the United States are involved, could increase the already tense political climate and reduce independent decision-making.
However, the crisis may encourage stronger cooperation in the future. Latin American countries have learned the importance of humanitarian coordination and diplomatic communication during large-scale emergencies such as this. If governments cooperate effectively, they could develop stronger institutions that are capable of responding to future crises more successfully.
This crisis has created serious security challenges for Latin America, including migration pressures, organized crime, and political division. Future implications will depend predominantly on whether Venezuela achieves political stability and economic stability, as well as how regional and global powers continue to respond.
The Venezuelan crisis cannot be understood only as a regional security issue. Its effects on migration, organized crime, political instability, and foreign involvement show why outside states, especially the United States, viewed Venezuela as a matter of broader international concern. However, once security concerns lead to direct foreign action, the debate shifts from political strategy to legality. The same crisis that created pressure for intervention also raises major legal questions about sovereignty, non-intervention, the use of force, and whether one state may lawfully act inside another state’s territory. The United States’ reported capture of Nicolás Maduro must be examined not only as a response to instability, but also as a possible violation of international law.
Introduction to Legal Analysis
The reported capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3, 2026, by United States forces raises serious questions under international law.[1] According to public reporting, the operation took place inside Venezuelan territory and resulted in Maduro’s transfer to the United States for criminal prosecution.[2] The legal difficulty is not simply that a foreign leader was accused of serious offences.[3] Rather, the controversy arises because the United States allegedly used military force inside another state’s jurisdiction, in order to obtain custody of a sitting head of state.[4]
The case, therefore, sits at the intersection of several core principles of the international legal order.[5] These include state sovereignty, the prohibition on the use of force, the distinction between prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction, and the personal immunity of incumbent high-ranking state officials. State sovereignty means that each state has legal authority over its own territory and political affairs, free from unauthorized interference by other states. The prohibition on the use of force prevents states from using military power against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence, except in limited circumstances recognized by international law. The distinction between prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction means that a state may sometimes have authority to make laws applying to foreign conduct, but it does not automatically have authority to enforce those laws physically inside another state’s territory. Personal immunity of incumbent high-ranking state officials protects certain sitting officials, such as heads of state, from arrest or criminal prosecution before foreign national courts while they remain in office. Moreover, Article 2(1) of the UN Charter affirms the sovereign equality of states, while Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.[6] A military operation conducted by one state inside the territory of another, without clear consent or another recognized legal basis, therefore creates a strong presumption of illegality.[7]
At the same time, the legal analysis is complex because the United States framed the operation as connected to criminal prosecution, transnational crime, and national security.[8] The following section of the article examines whether the operation can be understood as a lawful enforcement measure or whether it is better characterized as an unlawful violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty. It also considers whether international law permits the arrest and prosecution of a sitting foreign head of state before domestic courts. Overall, the stronger legal position is that the operation breached international law unless the United States can establish a valid justification, such as consent, self-defense, or Security Council authorization.
Background of the Operation
On January 3, 2026, the United States reportedly carried out a military operation in Caracas, Venezuela, resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The operation allegedly involved U.S. special forces acting inside Venezuelan territory and was described in some sources as “Operation Resolve” or “Operation Absolute Resolve.”[9] According to the UK House of Commons Library, the operation included a raid in Caracas and the transfer of Maduro and Flores first to a U.S. warship Iwo Jima and later to New York.[10]
The United States presented the operation as connected to criminal prosecution rather than as a conventional act of war.[11] U.S. officials stated that Maduro had been indicted in the Southern District of New York on charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess such weapons.[12] The House of Commons Library records that the U.S. Attorney General referred to these charges after the operation, and that Maduro and Flores later pleaded not guilty at their first court hearing in New York on January 5, 2026.[13]
Further confirmation that the operation was a U.S. military action appears in a later U.S. Department of Justice press release dated April 23, 2026.[14] Although that press release concerned the indictment of a U.S. Army soldier, Gannon Ken Van Dyke, for allegedly profiting from classified information, it stated that the soldier had participated in the planning and execution of a U.S. military operation to capture Maduro, referred to there as ‘Operation Absolute Resolve’.[15] The same press release stated that, in the early hours of January 3, the United States apprehended Maduro and Flores at a residence in Caracas.[16]
The operation was immediately controversial because it combined a law-enforcement objective with military activity inside another state’s territory.[17] Chatham House described the operation, from the U.S. perspective, as a “judicial extraction mission” supported by the military.[18] It also argued that the scale of the action, including strikes on targets in and around Caracas, created a significant challenge to Venezuela’s sovereignty and to the rules of the UN Charter.[19] The controversy was reinforced, as it was later reported that Maduro appeared in a U.S. federal court in March 2026 in connection with the narco-terrorism case, after having been captured by U.S. military forces in January.[20]
For the purpose of this Article, the key factual point is that the United States did not merely seek Maduro’s extradition through ordinary diplomatic or judicial channels.[21] Instead, it physically apprehended a sitting foreign leader through an operation conducted inside Venezuelan territory and transferred him to the United States for prosecution.[22] This factual background is central to the legal assessment as it raises three main questions. Firstly, whether the operation violated Venezuela’s sovereignty, secondly whether it constituted a prohibited use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and third, whether any recognized legal justification could excuse the action.[23]
Legal Issues Raised by Maduro’s Capture
Maduro’s capture raises several connected legal issues because the operation allegedly involved U.S. forces physically apprehending a sitting foreign president inside Venezuelan territory.[24] The first issue is sovereignty.[25] International law generally protects each state’s authority over its own territory and internal political affairs, and Article 2(1) of the UN Charter is based on the sovereign equality of all UN member states.[26] If U.S. forces acted in Venezuela without valid consent, the operation directly interfered with Venezuela’s territorial authority.[27]
A second issue is the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.[28] Article 2(4) requires states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.[29] Because the operation was allegedly conducted by U.S. military forces within Venezuela, the central question is whether it amounted to a prohibited use of force or an unlawful intervention in Venezuela’s internal affairs.[30]
A third issue is whether any exception could justify the operation. The most relevant possibilities are consent, self-defense, and international law enforcement against transnational crime.[31] These arguments are difficult because international law does not generally permit one state to carry out military law-enforcement operations inside another state’s territory without a clear legal basis.[32]
A fourth issue concerns head-of-state immunity. As a sitting president, Maduro may have been entitled to personal immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign states while in office.[33] The International Court of Justice has recognized that certain high-ranking state officials enjoy immunity from criminal process before foreign domestic courts during their term. The question is therefore whether the United States could lawfully arrest and prosecute Maduro while he remained Venezuela’s sitting head of state.
Finally, the case raises the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The United States may argue that it had jurisdiction because Maduro was accused of crimes with effects beyond Venezuela, including drug trafficking and narco-terrorism-related offences. However, even where a state claims criminal jurisdiction over foreign conduct, a separate question remains whether it may enforce that jurisdiction by apprehending the accused person in another state’s territory. The legality of the prosecution and the legality of the method used to obtain custody must therefore be analysed separately.
Sovereignty and the Use of Force
State Sovereignty under Article 2(1) of the UN Charter
State sovereignty is one of the foundational principles of international law. Article 2(1) of the UN Charter provides that the United Nations is based on the sovereign equality of all its members. In practical terms, this means that each state has equal legal status and normally has exclusive authority over its own territory and internal political affairs.[34]
In the Maduro case, the sovereignty issue arises because the United States allegedly carried out a military operation inside Venezuelan territory instead of relying on extradition, diplomatic cooperation, or other ordinary legal procedures.[35] The capture of a sitting president within his own state directly affects Venezuela’s territorial authority and political independence. Even if the United States had criminal charges against Maduro, those charges did not automatically give it the right to enforce its laws physically inside Venezuela.
This point reflects a basic distinction in international law between jurisdiction to prescribe and jurisdiction to enforce.[36] A state may sometimes apply its criminal law to conduct with cross-border effects, such as drug trafficking or terrorism-related conduct.[37] However, enforcement action inside another state’s territory normally requires that state’s consent or another recognized basis under international law.[38] Therefore, the central sovereignty question is not only whether the United States had reasons to prosecute Maduro, but whether it had authority to enter Venezuela and seize him.
Prohibition on the Use of Force under Article 2(4)
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits states from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. This rule is a central part of the modern international legal order because it limits unilateral military action by states. The International Court of Justice has also treated the prohibition on the use of force as a rule of customary international law.
The U.S. operation raises an Article 2(4) issue because it reportedly involved military forces operating in Venezuela to apprehend Maduro. If U.S. forces entered Venezuelan territory without valid consent, Security Council authorization, or a lawful claim of self-defense, the operation would likely fall within the kind of unilateral force that Article 2(4) is designed to prevent. This is especially significant because the operation was not passive cooperation with local authorities, but the use of state military power within another state’s territory.
The United States could argue that the operation was directed at criminal accountability rather than at Venezuela as a state. However, international law looks not only at an operation’s stated purpose, but also at its nature and effects. A military raid inside another state can still implicate Article 2(4), even if the immediate objective is to arrest an individual rather than to occupy territory or formally overthrow a government.
Violation of Venezuela’s Territorial Integrity
Territorial integrity refers to a state’s right to control its own territory free from unauthorized foreign military action. Given Maduro was captured in Caracas, the operation directly raises the question of whether Venezuela’s territorial integrity was violated. The fact that the target was an individual does not remove the territorial issue, because the enforcement action still occurred on Venezuelan soil.
The International Court of Justice’s reasoning in Nicaragua v United States is relevant by analogy. In that case, the Court found that unauthorized military actions against another state could violate both the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention.[39] Although the facts of the Maduro operation are different, because Nicaragua involved a broader pattern of military and paramilitary activity, including support for armed groups and actions against Nicaraguan territory, while the Maduro operation was a narrower capture mission directed at one individual. The underlying principle is similar: one state may not normally use military power within another state’s territory without a recognized legal justification.[40]
On this basis, the operation is difficult to reconcile with Venezuela’s territorial integrity unless the United States can establish valid consent, self-defense, or Security Council authorization. Without one of these justifications, the capture would likely be characterized not merely as a criminal law-enforcement measure, but as an infringement of Venezuela’s sovereign authority.
Possible Legal Justifications
Self-Defense
The first possible justification is self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a UN member state. For the United States to rely on this justification, it would need to show that Venezuela, or actors legally attributable to Venezuela, had committed or were imminently threatening an armed attack against the United States.
In the Maduro case, this argument is difficult to sustain. Although the United States may claim that Maduro’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking and narco-terrorism created a national security threat, international law generally distinguishes criminal activity from an armed attack within the meaning of Article 51.[41] Drug trafficking and transnational organized crime may justify prosecution, sanctions, or international cooperation, but they do not automatically justify military force inside another state’s territory.
The International Court of Justice has interpreted self-defense restrictively, particularly when a state seeks to justify force against another state.[42] In Nicaragua v United States, the Court emphasized that the right of self-defense depends on the existence of an armed attack and that not every hostile or unlawful act reaches that threshold.[43] Applying that reasoning here, the United States would need more than evidence of criminal conduct or political hostility. It would need to establish a sufficient armed attack or imminent armed attack connected to Venezuela.
A self-defense argument would also need to satisfy necessity and proportionality. Necessity would require showing that military action inside Venezuela was required because no peaceful or less intrusive alternative was available.[44] Proportionality would require showing that the scale and effects of the operation were limited to responding to the alleged armed attack.[45] If the operation’s primary purpose was to arrest Maduro for prosecution rather than to repel an armed attack, the self-defense justification becomes significantly weaker.
Consent by the Territorial State
A second possible justification is consent by the territorial state. Under international law, a state may allow another state to conduct certain operations on its territory, including military or law-enforcement cooperation, if the consent is validly given by an authority capable of representing the state.[46] If Venezuela had clearly consented to the U.S. operation, the objections based on sovereignty and territorial integrity would be reduced because the United States would not have acted unilaterally.
Consent is problematic here because the operation involved the capture of Venezuela’s sitting president. It would be difficult to argue that Maduro’s own government consented to a foreign military operation designed to arrest him and transfer him to the United States. Consent also cannot simply be inferred from support by an opposition figure, a rival political group, or an external actor.
For consent to justify intervention, it must be clear, valid, and given by an authority legally capable of speaking for the state.[47] If the United States relied on consent from an opposition movement or a rival claimant to governmental authority, the legality of that consent would itself be disputed.[48] This is especially sensitive because recognizing one political actor over another may interfere with the political independence of the state.
Accordingly, unless the United States can establish valid consent from the Venezuelan state itself, consent is unlikely to provide a strong legal justification for the operation. In the absence of such consent, the entry of U.S. forces into Caracas remains difficult to reconcile with Venezuela’s territorial sovereignty.
International Law Enforcement against Transnational Crime
A third possible justification is that the operation was an act of international law enforcement against transnational crime. The United States could argue that Maduro was targeted not because of his political position, but because he faced serious criminal charges, including narco-terrorism and drug-trafficking-related offences. On this view, the operation would be framed as an enforcement action against international criminal activity rather than as an attack on Venezuela as a state.
However, international law does not generally recognize a broad right of unilateral military enforcement against transnational crime inside another state’s territory.[49] Even where a state has jurisdiction to prosecute serious crimes, it usually must obtain custody through lawful means, such as extradition, mutual legal assistance, arrest with territorial consent, or other forms of international cooperation.[50] Criminal charges alone do not authorize a state to send military forces into another country to seize the accused person.
This distinction is central to the Maduro case. The United States may have claimed criminal jurisdiction because the alleged offences had effects connected to the United States. Yet a claim of jurisdiction to prosecute is different from a right to enforce that jurisdiction abroad.[51] A state may be able to apply its criminal law to certain cross-border conduct, but it normally cannot carry out arrests or military operations inside another state without consent or another recognized legal basis.
The operation therefore exposes a tension between criminal accountability and the international legal rules protecting sovereignty. On one hand, transnational crimes such as drug trafficking can create serious international security concerns.[52] On the other hand, allowing states to use military force abroad whenever they accuse a foreign leader of criminal conduct risks weakening both the prohibition on force and the principle of sovereign equality.
For that reason, the law-enforcement justification is limited. It may explain why the United States wanted Maduro in custody, but it does not by itself justify the method used to obtain custody.[53] Unless combined with valid consent, self-defense, or Security Council authorization, international law enforcement against transnational crime is unlikely to provide an independent legal basis for a military capture operation inside Venezuela.
Immunity and Jurisdiction
Head-of-State Immunity
A major issue raised by Maduro’s capture is whether a sitting head of state may be arrested and prosecuted before another state’s domestic courts. Under customary international law, certain high-ranking officials enjoy personal immunity, also known as immunity ratione personae, while they remain in office.[54] This form of immunity protects heads of state, heads of government, and foreign ministers from arrest or criminal proceedings before foreign domestic courts during their term of office.
The International Court of Justice addressed this principle in the Arrest Warrant case. Although that case concerned the foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo rather than a president, the Court’s reasoning is relevant because it emphasized that high-ranking officials may need immunity in order to perform their international functions effectively.[55] The Court held that an incumbent foreign minister enjoyed immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability before foreign national authorities, even where serious international crimes were alleged.
Applying that reasoning to Maduro, the argument for immunity is strong given he was still Venezuela’s sitting president at the time of capture.[56] His position as head of state would normally place him within the category of officials protected by personal immunity before foreign domestic courts. Therefore, despite the United States having serious criminal charges against Maduro, the question remains whether U.S. courts could lawfully exercise criminal jurisdiction over him while he remained in office.
However, immunity does not mean permanent impunity. The ICJ made clear that immunity before foreign domestic courts is procedural rather than substantive, meaning that it does not erase criminal responsibility itself.[57] A former official may, in some circumstances, be prosecuted after leaving office, and international criminal tribunals may apply different rules concerning official capacity.[58] The legal problem is therefore not whether Maduro could ever face prosecution, but whether he could be captured and prosecuted by the domestic courts of another state while still serving as head of state.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
The second major issue is whether the United States could exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over Maduro. Extraterritorial jurisdiction refers to a state’s attempt to apply its criminal law to conduct that occurs partly or entirely outside its territory.[59] States may sometimes claim jurisdiction over foreign conduct where there is a sufficient connection to their territory, nationals, security, or other recognized interests.
In this case, the United States could argue that jurisdiction existed because Maduro was accused of offences connected to drug trafficking and narco-terrorism affecting the United States.[60] These allegations may support a claim of prescriptive jurisdiction, meaning that the United States may argue its criminal law applied to the conduct.[61] Nevertheless, the existence of prescriptive jurisdiction does not automatically authorize enforcement action abroad.
International law generally treats enforcement jurisdiction as territorial.[62] This means that one state may not carry out arrests, searches, or military operations inside another state unless the territorial state consents or another legal basis exists.[63] As a result, even a plausible claim to prosecute Maduro would not by itself justify sending U.S. forces into Venezuela to arrest him.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v Alvarez-Machain is relevant but must be treated carefully. In that case, the Court held as a matter of U.S. domestic law that the forcible abduction of a defendant from Mexico did not prevent his trial in a U.S. court, where the extradition treaty did not expressly prohibit such abductions. However, that decision does not necessarily mean that the abduction was lawful under international law.[64] It mainly concerns whether a U.S. court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant once he is physically before the court.
Therefore, even if U.S. courts could proceed with a criminal trial once Maduro was in U.S. custody, a separate international law question remains: whether the United States violated Venezuela’s sovereignty by obtaining custody through a military operation in Caracas. Domestic jurisdiction over the person and international legality of the capture are two different issues. The first issue concerns whether a U.S. court may try Maduro once he is physically before it. The second concerns whether the United States acted lawfully when it used military force to bring him before that court. In other words, a domestic court may decide that an irregular capture does not prevent a trial from going forward, but that does not necessarily mean the capture itself complied with international law. The method of obtaining custody can still violate the territorial sovereignty of the state where the arrest occurred.
Prosecution of Sitting Foreign Leaders
The Pinochet litigation is often cited in discussions of immunity for former leaders. In that case, the United Kingdom’s House of Lords considered whether former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet could claim immunity in extradition proceedings relating to allegations of torture. The case is important because it limited immunity for certain international crimes, but it concerned a former head of state rather than a sitting one.[65] For that reason, Pinochet does not directly remove the personal immunity normally available to an incumbent head of state.
Maduro’s case is therefore different if he was still president when captured and brought before a U.S. court. The stronger immunity argument is that a sitting head of state remains protected from foreign domestic criminal jurisdiction during the term of office. This protection may be controversial where serious crimes are alleged, but the ICJ’s reasoning suggests that personal immunity can still apply even in cases involving grave accusations.
The United States may respond that Maduro’s alleged conduct was not protected official conduct and that criminal charges involving narcotics or terrorism should not be treated as legitimate sovereign acts. That argument may be more persuasive in relation to functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae, which protects official acts after a person leaves office. It is less persuasive against personal immunity, which protects certain sitting officials more broadly while they remain in office.
Accordingly, the prosecution of Maduro raises two connected but distinct questions. First, could U.S. courts claim criminal jurisdiction over the alleged offences? Second, did Maduro’s status as a sitting head of state prevent his arrest and prosecution before those courts while he remained in office? The answer to the first question does not automatically resolve the second, because jurisdiction over the crime and immunity of the person operate as separate legal doctrines.
Precedents and Comparative Cases
Abduction and Rendition Cases
Abduction and rendition cases are relevant because they show the legal tension between obtaining physical custody of an accused person and respecting the sovereignty of the state where that person is found. In United States v Alvarez-Machain, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the forcible abduction of a defendant from Mexico did not prevent his trial in a U.S. court.[66] The Court reasoned that, as a matter of U.S. domestic law, the abduction did not bar prosecution where the applicable extradition treaty did not expressly prohibit such conduct.[67]
However, Alvarez-Machain must be used carefully in an international law analysis. The case mainly answers whether a U.S. court may try a defendant once he is physically before the court. It does not fully resolve whether the abduction itself violated international law. This distinction matters in this case because, even if a U.S. court accepts jurisdiction over him after capture, the separate question remains whether the United States lawfully obtained custody inside Venezuela.
The Maduro situation is also more serious than many ordinary abduction cases because the alleged capture was directed not at a private individual alone, but at a sitting foreign president. The operation therefore raises questions not only about irregular custody or criminal procedure, but also about sovereignty, political independence, and head-of-state immunity. Alvarez-Machain may support the idea that a U.S. court could proceed domestically, but it does not provide a complete international-law justification for the operation.[68]
The broader lesson from abduction and rendition cases is that domestic courts may sometimes separate the legality of the arrest from the power to conduct the trial.[69] International law remains concerned, however, with whether one state violated another state’s territorial sovereignty while obtaining custody.[70] For that reason, these precedents do not eliminate the possibility that Venezuela’s rights under international law were infringed, even if Maduro’s later prosecution continued in U.S. courts.
Arrests of Foreign Officials
The arrest of foreign officials raises additional concerns because international law gives certain officeholders special protection while they are in office. In the Arrest Warrant case, the International Court of Justice held that an incumbent foreign minister enjoyed immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability before foreign domestic courts.[71] The Court emphasized that this immunity may apply even where serious crimes are alleged, because the purpose of the rule is to allow high-ranking officials to perform their international functions without interference from other states.[72]
Although the Arrest Warrant case concerned a foreign minister, its reasoning is highly relevant to sitting heads of state. Heads of state are generally treated as among the officials most clearly protected by personal immunity while in office.[73] Therefore, if Maduro was still Venezuela’s sitting president at the time of capture, the case supports the argument that he enjoyed immunity from arrest and prosecution before U.S. domestic courts during his term.
The Pinochet litigation provides a useful comparison, but it is not identical. In that case, the United Kingdom’s House of Lords considered the immunity of former Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet in relation to extradition proceedings for alleged torture. The case is important because it showed that former heads of state may not always be able to rely on immunity for certain international crimes.
However, the case does not directly answer the Maduro issue because Pinochet was no longer a sitting head of state when the proceedings occurred.[74] The distinction between a former and current leader is legally significant.[75] Functional immunity for former officials may be limited in some cases, while personal immunity for sitting leaders remains much stronger under the ICJ’s approach.
These precedents suggest that the prosecution of a foreign official depends heavily on the official’s status at the time of arrest and trial.[76] If the person is a former leader, courts may be more willing to consider exceptions to immunity, such as in the case of Pinochet.[77] If the person is still a sitting head of state, international law provides stronger protection, making the legality of arrest and prosecution before a foreign domestic court more doubtful.
Limits of Unilateral Enforcement
The comparative cases also illustrate the broader limit on unilateral enforcement in international law. A state may have authority to apply its laws to certain conduct, but that does not automatically give it authority to enforce those laws inside another state’s territory. This is the difference between prescriptive jurisdiction and enforcement jurisdiction.
The Lotus case is often cited for the idea that states may exercise broad jurisdiction unless international law prohibits it. At the same time, the case recognizes an important territorial limit: a state cannot exercise its power in the territory of another state without a permissive rule of international law. This principle supports the view that extraterritorial enforcement actions, such as arrests or military operations abroad, require a separate legal basis.[78]
In Maduro’s case, this means that U.S. criminal charges were not enough by themselves.[79] Even if the United States could claim jurisdiction over alleged drug-trafficking or narco- terrorism offences, it still needed a lawful basis to enforce that jurisdiction in Venezuela. Without consent, self-defense, or Security Council authorization, unilateral enforcement inside another state’s territory remains difficult to reconcile with international law.
Nicaragua v United States is also relevant because it confirms that unauthorized force and intervention against another state can violate international law. Although Nicaragua involved support for armed activities rather than the capture of a president, the underlying principle is comparable. One state may not normally use force in or against another state in order to pursue its own political, security, or enforcement objectives.
Taken together, these precedents show that the Maduro operation cannot be assessed only through the lens of criminal prosecution. It must also be assessed through the international rules limiting unilateral enforcement, protecting territorial sovereignty, and safeguarding the immunity of sitting high-ranking officials. The strongest comparative lesson is that a state’s interest in prosecution may explain why it seeks custody, but it does not automatically justify the method used to obtain that custody.
Legal Assessment
Arguments Supporting Legality
The strongest argument supporting the legality of the operation is that the United States was acting to enforce serious criminal charges rather than to annex territory or wage a conventional war against Venezuela.[80] Maduro was reportedly wanted in connection with charges involving narco-terrorism, cocaine importation, and weapons-related offences. From this perspective, the operation could be framed as an extraordinary law-enforcement action directed at an individual accused of transnational criminal conduct, rather than as an attack on the Venezuelan state itself.[81]
A further argument is that the United States may have claimed extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction because the alleged offences had effects beyond Venezuela, including effects connected to the United States.[82] International law does not completely prohibit states from applying their criminal law to conduct outside their territory where a sufficient jurisdictional connection exists.[83] Therefore, the United States could argue that it had a legitimate interest in prosecuting Maduro for conduct allegedly affecting U.S. security and public order.
The United States might also rely on the seriousness of the alleged offences to argue that Maduro should not be able to use his official position as a shield against accountability.[84] In modern international law, there is increasing recognition that high-ranking officials should not enjoy permanent impunity for serious crimes. This argument would be especially relevant if the United States claimed that Maduro’s alleged conduct was private or criminal rather than a legitimate act of state.
Finally, the United States could point to domestic precedents such as United States v Alvarez- Machain, where a U.S. court allowed prosecution to continue despite the defendant’s forcible abduction from another country. This precedent may support the argument that once Maduro was physically present before a U.S. court, the court could proceed with the criminal case. However, the argument is mainly persuasive as a matter of U.S. domestic criminal procedure and does not fully answer the separate question of whether the capture itself was lawful under international law.
Arguments Indicating Illegality
The stronger international-law objections concern sovereignty, the prohibition on force, and immunity. First, the operation involved U.S. forces entering Venezuelan territory to capture a sitting foreign president.[85] Unless Venezuela validly consented, this directly interfered with Venezuela’s territorial sovereignty and its authority over persons and events within its own territory.
Second, the operation raises serious concerns under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. A military operation in Caracas to seize Venezuela’s president is difficult to characterize as a purely domestic criminal-law matter because it involved the use of U.S. state power inside another sovereign state.
Third, the usual exceptions to the prohibition on force appear difficult to establish. There is no evidence that the United Nations Security Council authorized the operation. This point is reinforced by the emergency Security Council meeting held on 6 January 2026, after the operation had already taken place.[86] The fact that the Council met after the capture to debate its legality suggests that the operation was not carried out pursuant to prior Security Council authorization.[87] At that meeting, several states criticized the U.S. action as inconsistent with the UN Charter, while the United States defended the operation as a law-enforcement and self-defense measure rather than as an action authorized by the Council.[88] The Security Council context is also important because the United States is a permanent member with veto power, meaning that even if other members viewed the operation as unlawful, the Council would be unlikely to adopt a binding resolution condemning or sanctioning the United States.[89] Self-defense would require the United States to show an armed attack or imminent armed attack, and allegations of drug trafficking or narco-terrorism do not automatically satisfy that threshold. Consent is also doubtful because the operation targeted Venezuela’s sitting president, making it unlikely that the Venezuelan state clearly and validly consented to the action.
Fourth, Maduro’s status as a sitting head of state creates a major immunity problem. Under the reasoning of the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant case, incumbent high- ranking state officials may enjoy personal immunity and inviolability before foreign domestic courts while in office. If Maduro was still Venezuela’s president when captured, the United States would need to overcome the argument that he was immune from arrest and prosecution before U.S. domestic courts during his term.
Fifth, international law generally distinguishes between jurisdiction to prosecute and jurisdiction to enforce.[90] Even if the United States had a basis to charge Maduro under U.S. law, that would not automatically give it authority to enforce that law by conducting a military arrest operation inside Venezuela.[91] The legality argument is therefore weakened because the main issue is not only whether Maduro could be prosecuted, but whether the United States lawfully obtained custody over him.
Overall International Law Evaluation
On balance, the arguments indicating illegality are stronger than the arguments supporting legality. The United States may have had a serious interest in prosecuting Maduro for alleged offences, and it may have been able to claim some form of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction. However, international law does not generally permit a state to transform criminal charges into a right to conduct unilateral military enforcement inside another state’s territory.
The central difficulty is that the operation affected several core principles of international law at the same time. It implicated Venezuela’s sovereignty, the prohibition on the use of force, the rules on enforcement jurisdiction, and the personal immunity of a sitting head of state. Each of these doctrines limits the ability of one state to impose its authority directly on another state, especially through military means.
Therefore, unless the United States could establish a recognized legal basis such as valid consent, self-defense, or Security Council authorization, the operation is difficult to reconcile with international law. The fact that Maduro faced serious criminal allegations may explain why the United States sought to prosecute him, but it does not by itself justify the method used to capture him. Overall, the operation appears more consistent with an unlawful unilateral enforcement action than with a lawful exercise of international criminal cooperation.
Final Determination
This article has examined the legality of the United States’ January 2026 operation through the principles of sovereignty, the prohibition on the use of force, head-of-state immunity, and extraterritorial jurisdiction. The stronger legal position is that the operation was incompatible with international law unless the United States could prove a valid exception, such as consent, self-defense, or Security Council authorization. The operation’s law-enforcement purpose does not remove the international-law problem. Even if the United States had criminal jurisdiction over the alleged offences, it still needed a lawful basis to enforce that jurisdiction within Venezuela. The capture of a sitting president by foreign military forces inside his own state therefore appears to exceed the ordinary limits of unilateral criminal enforcement.
Accordingly, Maduro’s capture likely violated Venezuela’s sovereignty and raised serious concerns under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. This conclusion does not deny the seriousness of the criminal allegations against Maduro. Rather, it reflects the principle that even serious allegations must be pursued through methods compatible with international law.
Broader Implications for International Law
The case demonstrates the continuing importance of immunity rules, even when those rules are politically controversial. Head-of-state immunity can appear frustrating where serious crimes are alleged, but it serves the broader function of preventing domestic courts from unilaterally exercising power over sitting foreign leaders. The issue is therefore not whether leaders should be permanently immune from accountability, but whether accountability should be pursued through lawful procedures and appropriate forums.
Finally, the operation highlights the distinction between legality and legitimacy. A state may believe that capturing an accused leader is morally or politically justified, but international law asks a narrower question: whether the action fits within accepted legal rules. In this case, the stronger legal assessment is that the United States’ method of obtaining custody created serious violations of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the limits of enforcement jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The broader significance of the Maduro operation to international law is that it tests the boundary between criminal accountability and the international legal order protecting sovereign equality. If states were permitted to use military force in another state’s territory whenever they accused a foreign leader of transnational crime, the prohibition on the use of force would be weakened. Such a rule could create a dangerous precedent, especially where powerful states act against weaker states without international authorization. This crisis cannot be understood only as a regional security issue. Its effects on migration, organized crime, political instability, and foreign involvement show why outside states, especially the United States, viewed Venezuela as a matter of broader international concern. However, once security concerns lead to direct foreign action, the debate shifts from political strategy to legality. The same crisis that created pressure for intervention also raises major legal questions about sovereignty, non-intervention, the use of force, and whether one state may lawfully act inside another state’s territory. The United States’ reported capture of Nicolás Maduro must be examined not only as a response to instability, but also as a possible violation of international law.
References and Footnotes
A history of US intervention in Latin America. (2026). Counterfire.
[https://www.counterfire.org/article/a-history-of-us-intervention-in-latin-america/](https:// http://www.counterfire.org/article/a-history-of-us-intervention-in-latin-america/)
A rebel playing field: Colombian guerrillas on the Venezuelan border – Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). (n.d.). ReliefWeb.
[https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-bolivarian-republic/rebel-playing-field-colombian-g uerrillas-venezuelan-border](https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-bolivarian-republic/re bel-playing-field-colombian-guerrillas-venezuelan-border)
A Way Out of Latin America’s Impasse over Venezuela. (2026). Reliefweb.int. [https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-bolivarian-republic/way-out-latin-america-s-impass e-over-venezuela-latin-america](https://reliefweb.int/report/venezuela-bolivarian-republic /way-out-latin-america-s-impasse-over-venezuela-latin-america)
Amnesty International. (2022). Everything you need to know about human rights in Venezuela 2020. Amnesty International.
[https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezu ela/](https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-ven ezuela/)
Bolivarian Revolution | EBSCO. (2021). EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | [Www.ebsco.com](http://Www.ebsco.com).
[https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/bolivarian-revoluti on](https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/bolivarian-rev olution)
Brancaccio, N. (2025, December 13). Hugo Chávez and the Venezuelan Revolution – Revolutionary Communists of America. Revolutionary Communists of America. [https://communistusa.org/hugo-chavez-and-the-venezuelan-revolution/](https://commu nistusa.org/hugo-chavez-and-the-venezuelan-revolution/)
Chaves-González, D., Amaral, J., & Mora, M. (2021). Socioeconomic Integration of Venezuelan Migrants and Refugees.
[https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/press_release/file/mpi-iom_socioecono mic-integration-venezuelans_2021_final.pdf](https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/f iles/press_release/file/mpi-iom_socioeconomic-integration-venezuelans_2021_final.pdf)
Delanis, J. (1979). Force” under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter: The “Force” under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter: The Political Coercion. Vanderbilt
Journal of Transnational Law Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 12. [https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2404&context=vjtl](htt ps://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2404&context=vjtl)
dhojnacki. (2025, November 4). Facing the threat of US strikes, Maduro has requested Russia’s help. He shouldn’t expect much. Atlantic Council.
[https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-mad uro-has-requested-russias-help-he-shouldnt-expect-much/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.o rg/blogs/new-atlanticist/facing-the-threat-of-us-strikes-maduro-has-requested-russias-he lp-he-shouldnt-expect-much/)
Farer, T. (n.d.). Intervention and Human Rights: The Latin American Context [https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1721&context=cwilj] (https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1721&context=cwilj)
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson’s Remarks on the U.S. Seizing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and His Wife_Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2026). Fmprc.gov.cn.
[https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/202601/t20260104_11797389.html](https://www.f mprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/fyrbt/202601/t20260104_11797389.html)
Garrigues, J. (n.d.). The responsibility to protect: from an ethical principle to an effective policy
[https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/131298/responsabilidad.proteger.pdf](https://www.files.ethz .ch/isn/131298/responsabilidad.proteger.pdf)
Hajdari, U. (2025, December 29). Explainer: Why Chevron operates in Venezuela despite US sanctions. Euronews; euronews.com.
[https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/12/29/explainer-why-chevron-still-operates-i n-venezuela-despite-us-sanctions](https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/12/29/exp lainer-why-chevron-still-operates-in-venezuela-despite-us-sanctions)
Helal, M. (2025). Intervention, Force & Coercion: A Historical Inquiry on the Evolution of the Prohibition on Intervention
[https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3107&context=ils](https: //digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3107&context=ils)
Household poverty rate in Venezuela 2024| Statista. (2024). Statista. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235189/household-poverty-rate-venezuela/?srsltid= AfmBOooYHAXO67qifhK96-7hfIfHyxEWggKt0wiRpN_0-09Kkf4H9VCg](https://www.stat
ista.com/statistics/1235189/household-poverty-rate-venezuela/?srsltid=AfmBOooYHAX O67qifhK96-7hfIfHyxEWggKt0wiRpN_0-09Kkf4H9VCg)
Identifying and Responding to Criminal Threats from Venezuela. (n.d.). [Www.csis.org](http://Www.csis.org).
[https://www.csis.org/analysis/identifying-and-responding-criminal-threats-venezuela](htt ps://www.csis.org/analysis/identifying-and-responding-criminal-threats-venezuela)
Merve Aydogan. (2025, December 24). Russia calls US blockade on Venezuela “real act of aggression,” warns of possible precedent. Anadolu; Anadolu Ajansı. [https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/russia-calls-us-blockade-on-venezuela-real-act-of-a ggression-warns-of-possible-precedent/3779167](https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/ru ssia-calls-us-blockade-on-venezuela-real-act-of-aggression-warns-of-possible-preceden t/3779167)
Rwanda, Syria and the Responsibility to Protect. (n.d.). Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.
[https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/rwanda-syria-and-the-responsibility-to-protect/](h ttps://www.globalr2p.org/publications/rwanda-syria-and-the-responsibility-to-protect/)
Schrama, A. (2018, October). From anti-imperialism to anti-Americanism in Venezuela: Analyzing the effect of 9/11 and the War on Terror on
the political discourse of Hugo Chavez. Page 28
[https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2660606/view](https://studen ttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2660606/view)
Seelke, C. R. (2025). Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions Policy. Congress.gov. [https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10715](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/I F10715)
UN experts condemn United States blockade and aggression against Venezuela. (2025). OHCHR.
[https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/12/un-experts-condemn-united-states-bl ockade-and-aggression-against-venezuela](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/20 25/12/un-experts-condemn-united-states-blockade-and-aggression-against-venezuela)
UN experts condemn United States blockade and aggression against Venezuela. (2025). OHCHR.
[https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/12/un-experts-condemn-united-states-bl
ockade-and-aggression-against-venezuela](https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/20 25/12/un-experts-condemn-united-states-blockade-and-aggression-against-venezuela)
UNHCR. (2024). Venezuela Crisis | USA for UNHCR. Unrefugees.org. [https://www.unrefugees.org/emergencies/venezuela/](https://www.unrefugees.org/emer gencies/venezuela/)
United Nations. (2005). About the Responsibility to Protect | United Nations. United Nations; United Nations.
[https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/responsibility-protect/about](https://www.un. org/en/genocide-prevention/responsibility-protect/about)
Van der Horst, K. (2023, September 14). The War in Ukraine: Altering the norm of state sovereignty? | Militaire Spectator. Militairespectator.nl.
[https://militairespectator.nl/artikelen/war-ukraine-altering-norm-state-sovereignty](https:/ /militairespectator.nl/artikelen/war-ukraine-altering-norm-state-sovereignty)
Venezuela’s Crisis Is Polarizing Latin America’s Politics. (2024, October). Americas Quarterly.
[https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/venezuelas-crisis-is-polarizing-latin-americas politics/](https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/venezuelas-crisis-is-polarizing-latin-a mericas-politics/)
Wintour, P. (2019, February 3). European nations set to recognise Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s leader. The Guardian; The Guardian.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/03/european-leaders-set-to-recognise-jua n-guaido-as-venezuela-head](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/03/european -leaders-set-to-recognise-juan-guaido-as-venezuela-head)
Wood, M. (2024). Non-Intervention (Non-interference in domestic affairs). The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination.
[https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/551](https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/551)
Zac Jutcovich. (2025, November 24). Policy Alert: Maduro’s Venezuela is a Playground for America’s Adversaries Maduro’s Venezuela: A Playground for America’s Adversaries. FDD Action.
[https://www.fddaction.org/policy-alerts/2025/11/24/policy-alert-maduros-venezuela-is-a playground-for-americas-adversaries/](https://www.fddaction.org/policy-alerts/2025/11/2 4/policy-alert-maduros-venezuela-is-a-playground-for-americas-adversaries/)
House of Commons Library, ‘The US Capture of Nicolás Maduro’ (House of Commons Library, 6 January 2026) <https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10452/> accessed 31 May 2026; Marc Weller, ‘The US Capture of President Nicolás Maduro – and Attacks on Venezuela – Have No Justification in International Law’ (Chatham House, 4 January 2026, updated 6 January 2026) <https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/us-capture-president-nicolas-maduro-and-attacks-venezuela-have-no-justification> accessed 31 May 2026. ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Reuters, ‘UN Chief Guterres Raises Concerns about Instability in Venezuela, Legality of US Operation’ (Reuters, 5 January 2026) <https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/un-chief-guterres-raises-concerns-about-instability-venezuela-legality-us-2026-01-05/> accessed 31 May 2026. ↑
Weller (n 1); House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 2(1), 2(4). ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 2(4); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14; Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); US Department of Justice, ‘U.S. Soldier Charged With Using Classified Information To Profit From Prediction Market Bets’ (Department of Justice, 23 April 2026) <https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-soldier-charged-using-classified-information-profit-prediction-market-bets> accessed 31 May 2026. ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
US Department of Justice, ‘U.S. Soldier Charged With Using Classified Information To Profit From Prediction Market Bets’ (Department of Justice, 23 April 2026) <https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-soldier-charged-using-classified-information-profit-prediction-market-bets> accessed 31 May 2026. ↑
US Department of Justice (n 14). ↑
US Department of Justice (n 14). ↑
Weller (n 1). ↑
Weller (n 1). ↑
Weller (n 1). ↑
The Guardian, ‘Nicolás Maduro Appears Again in New York Court on “Narco-Terrorism” Charges’ (The Guardian, 26 March 2026) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/26/nicolas-maduro-federal-court-narco-terrorism-case> accessed 31 May 2026. ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); US Department of Justice (n 14). ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 2(4); Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
Weller (n 1). ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 2(1). ↑
Weller (n 1). ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 2(4). ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 2(4). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
Weller (n 1); Charter of the United Nations art 51. ↑
Weller (n 1); The Case of the SS Lotus (France v Turkey) PCIJ Rep Series A No 10, 18–19; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14. ↑
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, paras 51–55. ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 2(1); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, paras 202–05. ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
The Case of the SS Lotus (France v Turkey) PCIJ Rep Series A No 10, 18–19. ↑
Lotus (n 32) 19. ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19. ↑
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14. ↑
ibid. ↑
Charter of the United Nations art 51; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, paras 191, 195. ↑
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, paras 191, 194–95. ↑
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, paras 191, 194–95. ↑
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 194. ↑
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, para 194. ↑
Weller (n 1); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, paras 246, 252. ↑
Weller (n 1); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, paras 246, 252. ↑
Weller (n 1). ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19; Weller (n 1). ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19; United States v Alvarez-Machain 504 US 655, 669–70 (1992). ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19. ↑
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, ‘Transnational Organized Crime’ (UNODC) <https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/toc.html> accessed 31 May 2026 ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 51–55. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 53–55. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 51–55; House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) para 60. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) para 61. ↑
Lotus (n 32) 19. ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
Lotus (n 32) 19; House of Commons Library (n 1). ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19. ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19; Weller (n 1). ↑
United States v Alvarez-Machain 504 US 655, 669–70 (1992); Lotus (n 1) 18–19. ↑
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147. ↑
United States v Alvarez-Machain 504 US 655, 657, 669–70 (1992). ↑
Alvarez-Machain (n 64) 664–70. ↑
Alvarez-Machain (n 64) 669–70; Lotus (n 32) 18–19. ↑
Alvarez-Machain (n 64) 669–70. ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19; Weller (n 1). ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 51–55. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 1) paras 53–55, 58. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 51–55. ↑
Pinochet (n 63); Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 51–55, 61. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 51–55, 61. ↑
Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 51–55, 61; Pinochet (n 63). ↑
Pinochet (n 63). ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19; Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Lotus (n 32) 18–19; Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Weller (n 1). ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Lotus (n 32) 19. ↑
Lotus (n 32) 19. ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); Arrest Warrant (n 33) paras 60–61. ↑
House of Commons Library (n 1); US Department of Justice (n 9). ↑
Reuters (n 4). ↑
Reuters (n 4). ↑
Reuters (n 4). ↑
Reuters (n 4). ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19. ↑
Lotus (n 32) 18–19; House of Commons Library (n 1).
Disclaimer of liability:
While we are transparent about all sources used in this article and double-checked all the given information, we make no claims about its completeness, accuracy or reliability. If you notice a mistake or misleading phrasing, please contact centuria-sa@hhs.nl .
This article also contains links to other third-party websites, which have only been placed for the convenience of the reader and does not imply endorsement of contents of said third-party websites.
Leave a Reply