The Maduro Precedent: Extraterritorial Justice or the Death of Sovereign Immunity?

Saheed Akinola Esq

Writing about the capture of Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, requires moving past simple reporting to examine a fundamental rupture in the global legal order. This event represents the most aggressive application of extraterritorial jurisdiction in modern history.

The Deep Roots of the Conflict

The crisis did not begin with the 2026 military strikes but is the culmination of a decades-long struggle between Washington and Caracas. Under Hugo Chávez (1999–2013), Venezuela pivoted toward a socialist, anti-US model that redirected oil wealth and challenged American influence in Latin America (Congress.gov, 2022).

By the time Maduro succeeded Chávez, the relationship had curdled into open hostility. The US Department of Justice unsealed indictments in 2020, alleging that Maduro led the “Cartel of the Suns”; a criminal network of high-ranking military officials involved in narco-terrorism (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020).

The 2024 Venezuelan elections, which the US and many international observers condemned as fraudulent, further delegitimized Maduro in the eyes of Washington. This created the “de facto” versus “de jure” leadership vacuum that the US used to justify the January 2026 operation (CFR, 2026).

The BRICS Response and the Sovereignty Shield

The backlash from Russia, China, and South Africa is not merely political posturing but a defense of “Westphalian” sovereignty. These nations argue that the internal governance of a state is shielded from outside interference, a principle they view as the “indispensable cornerstone” of world peace (XVI BRICS Summit, 2024).

Scholars P. Esteves and C.F. Coelho (2025) argue that BRICS members coordinate their support for Maduro as a strategic response to “Western overreach.” They suggest that for these nations, the survival of the Venezuelan government is a proxy for the survival of the principle of non-intervention itself.

David Kaye (2023) observes that while the US frames its actions as a defense of human rights and security, states like China see this as the “hollowness of sovereignty.” They contend that if one power can unilaterally decide when another’s sovereignty ends, the UN Charter essentially becomes a tool of the powerful.

Sanctions, State Responsibility, and Legality

Before the military capture, the US spent years using “unilateral coercive measures” to weaken Maduro’s grip. Legal researcher Alexandra Hofer (2021) argues that such sanctions often contradict the fundamental principle of sovereign equality because they create an “unlawful hierarchy” between states.

Hofer’s analysis suggests that when a powerful economy like the US punishes a leader through financial isolation, it is attempting to induce compliance through force rather than diplomacy. This arguably bypasses the law of state responsibility, which requires collective international action rather than individual state aggression.

The 2026 operation has seemingly shifted these “punitive acts” from the economic realm to the military realm. This transition may depend on whether the international community accepts the US claim that Maduro’s alleged drug trafficking constituted a direct “armed threat” to American citizens.

The Problem of Head-of-State Immunity

The most significant legal barrier to prosecuting Maduro is “immunity ratione personae.” Customary law firmly establishes that sitting heads of state enjoy absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction, even for alleged international crimes (Franey & Breeze, 2025).

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed this in the 2002 Arrest Warrant case. However, P.S. Masumbe (2025) notes that while personal immunity is absolute, its duration is limited to the term of office. The US likely argues that because they do not recognize Maduro as the “legal” president, his immunity is void.

This interpretation is highly debated. As recent ILC reports indicate, it is not yet settled whether a “de facto” leader, one who holds power but lacks legal recognition, enjoys the same protections as a “de jure” leader (Schusterschitz & Bittner, 2025).

Conclusion: Justice or Force?

Ultimately, the capture of Maduro presents a choice between the “Rule of Law” and the “Rule of Force.” While the US may secure a conviction in a New York courtroom, the cost may be the further erosion of the international legal framework that prevents global anarchy.

The precedent set here suggests that any state with sufficient military power can now redefine “criminal activity” to justify the abduction of a foreign leader. This development leaves the UN and its member states at a crossroads: either reform international law to address “gangster states” or risk a return to a world of unipolar aggression.

References

Congress.gov. (2022). Venezuela: Background and U.S. Relations. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44841

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (2026). U.S. Confrontation With Venezuela. Global Conflict Tracker. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/instability-venezuela

U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). United States v. Nicolás Maduro Moros et al. Southern District of New York. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/nicol-s-maduro-moros-and-14-current-and-former-venezuelan-officials-charged-narco-terrorism

BRICS. (2024). XVI BRICS Summit Kazan Declaration. http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/en/RosOySvLzGaJtmx2wYFv0lN4NSPZploG.pdf

Esteves, P., & Coelho, C. F. (2025). Be careful what you wish for: Brazil and BRICS in three acts. South African Journal of International Affairs.

Kaye, D. (2023). The United Nations Charter, International Human Rights, and the Hollowness of Sovereignty Claims. Handbook on the UN Human Rights System.

Hofer, A. (2021). Unilateral sanctions as a challenge to the law of state responsibility. Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions.

United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4).

Franey, E. H., & Breeze, E. J. (2025). Immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of national courts. Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities.

Masumbe, P. S. (2025). Immunity Ratione Materiae in Action. Perspectives of Law and Public Administration.

Schusterschitz, G., & Bittner, P. (2025). Recent Austrian Practice in the Field of International Law: Report for 2024. Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht.