US Capture of Nicholas Maduro: A Violation of International Law?

The 3rd January 2026 breaking news of the capture of Nicolás Maduro, Venezuelan president, by US special anti-terrorism forces, has flooded a discrepancy of reports, interpretations and commentaries from the street, broadcast, print and social media. 

The anecdote of the scenarios that led to the capture is as of now so ubiquitous to such an extent that even a woman selling tomatoes in the market can narrate it in her own way. 

Thus, it will be a vastum of time travelling through the corridors of the incidence that occurred before and during the capture. 

Therefore, it will be picky picky to rather concentrate on the technicalities and reactions surrounding the capture of the alleged drug lord. 

As an attempt to quench your informative appetite, I will nourish you with the following facts and arguments: Reactions from world leaders, If the action constitutes a violation, is there a possibility for a sanction? 

And is there any consequence for an absence of sanction? Let's get started. Immediately after the capture was announced by the US president, leaders around the world began responding with a mixture of condemnation and support. 

The leaders who are in strong condemnation include Russia, China, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Cuba, Canada, Norway, and Iran, who has had a recent battle with Trump. 

These countries clearly, without mixing words, outline the action as an act against international law. China on her path has demanded the immediate release of the presidential couple. 

While these countries are steaming with agitations and accusations at the US, Trump seems to be receiving comfort from his allies who are in total support of his action. 

With the UK taking the lead in support, it has expressly validated the action as necessary, while Trump's favourite ally, Argentina, has drummed the anthem of a free Venezuela at last. 

France, Germany and Israel have followed the same spirit of support. These conflicting verdicts with regard to the violation or non-violation of international law breed more confusion than clarity in the political climate. This quandary leads us to examine again if there was a violation. 

Is the capture a violation of international law?

With the consideration that both the US and Venezuela are members of the UN, the action, as per my opinion, is on one hand a gross violation of article 2(1) and (4) of the UN Charter and art. 15 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), which stipulates sovereign equality of all UN nations, and article 2(7), which is against interference. 

Thus, documentarily, there's a violation. On the other hand, by extension there's a justification for the action. Let's look at the possible justification for such an act under international law. 

It is worthy of note that this is not the first time an international law principle has been violated.

In fact, the ICC (International Criminal Court) has violated international criminal law countless times. 

The justification which can sit well for such an action stems from the fact that Trump and his allies accuse Venezuela of carrying out acts of torture and mass killings against her citizens. 

Though this seems to be a mere cook-up of allegations to support their economic interests, the 2023 UN statistics of over 7 million Venezuelans out of the 30 million to have fled to neighbouring countries is a charming and convincing evidence of these allegations. 

Thus, capturing Maduru is an attempt to liberate the Venezuelan citizens who have been wailing for justice.

If Trump were to stand on this, his action could be justifiable, but he seems to be focusing on narcotic terrorism and corruption, which are lesser and can't be considered as international crimes whose responsive action can be worthy of a breach of international law. 

It is good to note that international law was created to protect the people and not necessarily the state. Thus the interest of the people surpasses that of the state. In this case the necessity for freedom of a people held captive by their own leader warrants any necessary peaceful action. 

The only issue here is that it wasn't a collective action by the other UN members. Because the Nuremberg trials violated the principle of legality (both Nullum Crimen sine lege and Nullum Poena sine lege) by indicting and punishing Nazi leaders for actions which were not crimes at the time of commission. 

But it was justified that the need to do justice can't be sacrificed because of a mere principle of legality. By extension we can also hold that the freedom of the Venezuelan citizens can't be sacrificed for a mere principle of sovereignty. 

We cannot argue about US economic interest in the action because no country can risk their military for vanity. Thus, they gave Venezuelans freedom in exchange for a little of their economic power. 

Though the above justification remains valid, it is still undeniable that the capture is an overt violation of international law. And this forces us to ask if there's any possibility for a sanction on us. 

Any possibility for a sanction against US?

It is almost evasive for one to think of the possibility of a sanction from the world governing body, the UN.

Not only that, but the UN is gradually turning into the historical bulldog League of Nations that can only bark but not bite. It is good to hold strongly that the UN is the US, and the US is the UN. 

Put simply, the UN has 5 powerful countries with veto powers: the US, Russia, China, the UK and France. Out of the 4 countries, two are allies of the US, that is, France and the UK. 

Thus if there's a decision for sanction, the vote will be 3 against 2. That's why it's difficult to sanction US. Now that the US can't be sanctioned, the last but not the least worry is the consequence of this inability to sanction the US by the UN.

Consequence of the Inability to Sanction US

The consequences are many, but I will provide just two. It will open a floodgate of attacks and might bring back the concept of colonisation, as Russia will be targeting Ukraine while China will target Taiwan.

It might lead to a global war because attacks or capturing of smaller nations might conflict with the interest of a superpower that will need to protect the smaller nation. 

Protection will lead to war through support from allies. In conclusion, the capture might seem justifiable, but it is a violation of a major principle of international law, and if care is not taken with high diplomacy, the consequences might be grievous.

BY MARKS ABAIKO

Contact KNews management on whtapp for news coverage, support, special-write-ups and advertisement (+237) 651252410

Nicholas Maduro