When the US military captured President Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores on January 3 2026, they violated several foundational international laws, according to legal experts, UN rapporteurs, and international bodies.

These violations generally fall into three categories: the prohibition on the use of force, the violation of state sovereignty, and the breach of head-of-state immunity.

1. Prohibition of the Threat or Use of Force

The biggest violation cited is the breach of the UN Charter, specifically Article 2(4).

The Law: This article mandates that all states must refrain from the ‘threat or use of force’ against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.

The Violation: UN experts and legal scholars argue that the US bombing of civilian and military sites and the deployment of troops onto Venezuelan soil constituted an unprovoked use of armed force.

Lack of Justification: International law provides limited exceptions to this prohibition, specifically if the UN Security Council authorises force or if a state is acting in self-defence against an armed attack. Sources note that the US had not suffered an armed attack from Venezuela, nor was an attack imminent, meaning the self-defence justification was not applicable. Furthermore, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for the operation.

2. Violation of Sovereignty and Non-Intervention

The operation is described as a breach of treaties and customary laws that protect the sovereignty of nations.

The operation violated the Charter of the Organisation of American States (OAS). Article 21 declares the territory of a state to be ‘inviolable’ and prohibits military occupation or measures of force by one state against another.  Article 19 denies any state the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, in the internal or external affairs of another state for any reason.

UN Charter: The operation also violated Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, which prevents intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.

Airspace Violation: The unauthorised entry of US aircraft into Venezuelan airspace was a specific violation of the country’s territorial integrity.

3. Violation of Head-of-State Immunity

The capture and indictment of President Maduro violated the principle of head-of-state immunity, a rule rooted in customary international law.

The Law: Sitting heads of state are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign courts to ensure states can conduct international relations without their leaders being seized by other nations.

The Violation: By arresting and detaining a sitting president, the US breached this immunity. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) precedent, specifically the Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium (2002), establishes that incumbent high-ranking officials enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability.

There is an exception to this but it is worth noting that it is not applicable here. While the International Criminal Court (ICC) can prosecute heads of state under the Rome Statute (as seen with warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu), this exception applies to international tribunals, not the domestic courts of a foreign nation like the United States.

4. The Crime of Aggression

A panel of UN experts indicated that the operation might constitute the international crime of aggression. This is considered one of the most serious violations of international law, attributable to the individual political and military leaders responsible for the act.

Summary of Legal Conflict

While the US administration argued that the operation was legal under US domestic law (citing the 1989 capture of Manuel Noriega and theories regarding the arrest of fugitives), international legal experts assert that US domestic law cannot supersede international treaty obligations. As one source notes, even if US courts have previously ruled that the manner of a defendant’s capture does not invalidate their trial (the Ker-Frisbie doctrine), this judicial ruling does not render the capture lawful under international standards.

To understand the severity of this legal conflict in simpler terms, think about your local police force.

While they have a warrant to arrest a suspect (domestic law), they legally cannot break into a foreign embassy or cross into a neighbouring country to force that arrest without permission (international law).

The US operation was like kicking down the neighbour’s door and claiming the warrant makes the break-in legal, a stance the neighbours (the international community) fundamentally reject.

IOL

Source link