By Mark Longyen, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)
The United States’ military incursion into Venezuela on Jan. 3, involving elite Delta Force operatives, has sent shockwaves through the international community, triggering far-reaching diplomatic and legal repercussions.
More controversially, the seizure and subsequent extradition of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife to the United States to face alleged drug trafficking charges has opened what many observers describe as a Pandora’s box in international diplomacy.
Codenamed ‘Operation Absolute Resolve’, the U.S. action marks a sharp departure from conventional extradition procedures and established norms of international legal cooperation.
As a result, world leaders and international relations experts are sharply divided over whether the operation aligns with international law.
At the heart of the debate are core principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, especially state sovereignty, territorial integrity and the limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Maduro’s transfer to stand trial before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has, analysts argue, raised questions about the future of the contemporary rules-based international system.
Some legal scholars contend that, since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, few developments have posed such a direct challenge to the norm of sovereign equality among states.
Although unprecedented in recent decades, the incident is not without historical parallel.
In 1989, U.S. forces invaded Panama, arrested its then leader, General Manuel Noriega, and extradited him to the United States on drug trafficking charges.
Noriega was later convicted and imprisoned for 20 years.
While Washington has framed the latest operation as a necessary law-enforcement measure against what it describes as a “narco-terrorist” regime, much of the international community has reacted with unease, if not outright condemnation.
The scale of the operation; reportedly involving more than 150 aircraft and coordinated strikes across northern Venezuela and the capital, Caracas, has further intensified concerns.
Analysts warn that the action signals a potential shift in the global security architecture, reinforcing perceptions that power, rather than law, increasingly determines outcomes in international relations.
Critics argue that the use of domestic criminal law as a tool to effect regime change undermines the foundational prohibition on the use of force under international law, thereby weakening long-standing safeguards against unilateral military action.
Reactions, however, have been mixed.
While U.S. rivals have denounced the operation, some allies and regional neighbours have openly welcomed it.
Argentina’s President, Javier Milei, for instance, described Maduro’s capture and extradition as a “decisive step against narco-terrorism”.
Similarly, Guyana’s President, Irfaan Ali, characterised the action as a “reaffirmation of regional security”.
María Machado, Venezuela’s opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, praised the U.S. intervention as an act of “firmness and determination to liberate Venezuelans from the dictatorial rule of a criminal cartel”.
In contrast, traditional U.S. adversaries have condemned the move as a return to “gunboat diplomacy”.
Russia labelled the operation an “act of armed aggression” and expressed concern over the precedent it sets.
China also criticised the incursion, warning that “no country should act as the world’s police” and cautioning that such unilateralism undermines the collective global security framework established after World War II.
Across Latin America, left-leaning governments in countries such as Chile, Colombia and Mexico reiterated that territorial integrity and non-intervention remain inviolable principles of international law.
They stressed that these red lines should not be crossed, irrespective of the nature of any regime in power.
Caught between these opposing views is the Organisation of American States (OAS).
Its Secretary-General, Luis Almagro, while calling for restraint to prevent further escalation, acknowledged the sharply divergent perspectives across the hemisphere.
Experts warn that the absence of a unified regional or global response risks returning Latin America to Cold War-era dynamics, where external interventions fuelled fragmentation rather than cooperation.
In spite of the growing uproar, the U.S. government has remained resolute in defending its actions.
The Trump administration has sought to justify the operation through court filings submitted by U.S. Attorney-General Pam Bondi against Maduro and his co-defendants.
Central to the U.S. legal strategy is an attempt to strip Maduro of sovereign immunity.
According to the court documents, Washington argues that it has never recognised Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president; a position that, by implication, seeks to deny him immunity ratione personae, which ordinarily shields sitting heads of state from foreign criminal jurisdiction.
The U.S. further claims that Venezuela’s leadership does not constitute a sovereign government but rather a “state-enabled criminal enterprise” designed to enrich political and military elites through narco-terrorism.
According to the indictment, the Venezuelan state allegedly corrupted its institutions for over 25 years to facilitate the trafficking of thousands of tonnes of cocaine into the United States.
Prosecutors accuse Maduro, his wife, his son and senior official Diosdado Cabello of participating in narcotics conspiracies, weapons offences and acts of narco-terrorism.
The charges allege that Maduro collaborated with armed groups such as Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN) and Mexican drug cartels, enabling the shipment of up to 250 tonnes of cocaine annually into the U.S. via container ships, aircraft and speedboats.
The indictment also details specific incidents, including a 2006 episode at Maiquetía Airport, where Maduro allegedly ordered changes to drug routes following a major seizure in Mexico.
It further claims that Venezuelan diplomatic passports were sold to traffickers between 2006 and 2008 to facilitate money laundering under the guise of official state missions.
“The defendants’ actions were performed in a private capacity for personal enrichment,” the indictment states.
However, international law experts remain unconvinced.
For instance, Dr Abiodun Obadare argues that the U.S. operation fails to meet the criteria set out in the UN Charter governing the use of force.
According to him, the action violates Article 2(4) of the Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
He notes that this provision is widely regarded as the cornerstone of the modern international legal order.
“There are only two recognised exceptions: self-defence under Article 51 and action authorised by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII.
“In this case, there was no Security Council authorisation, and drug trafficking does not constitute an armed attack capable of triggering self-defence,” he said.
Obadare also rejects the U.S. characterisation of narcotics trafficking as a form of aggression, arguing that, however harmful, it does not meet the threshold of armed attack under international law.
George Acheampong, a foreign policy analyst, similarly describes Maduro’s capture as a critical moment for the rules-based international order.
He argues that the operation exposes the limitations of the UN Charter when confronted by a determined superpower acting on perceived national security interests.
While Washington insists it is enforcing the law, Acheampong contends that the episode risks reinstating a “law of the jungle,” where powerful states bypass global norms with impunity.
He further warns that eroding the principle of sovereign equality could ultimately backfire on the U.S. itself.
By setting a precedent for unilateral abductions, he says, other powers could justify similar actions against American officials abroad.
“As an example, China or Russia could claim symmetrical authority to apprehend U.S. officials for alleged violations of their domestic laws, exposing American personnel overseas to greater risk,” he said.
Ultimately, analysts agree that the U.S. action represents a fundamental shift in how international law is applied, particularly in the enforcement of domestic indictments beyond national borders.
The UN Security Council’s structural limitations; especially the veto power of permanent members such as the U.S., have effectively paralysed any collective response, reinforcing perceptions that international law is largely symbolic when powerful states are involved.
As proceedings unfold in New York, observers argue that it is not only Maduro who is on trial, but the credibility of the international legal order itself.
Many expect the prosecution to rely heavily on the precedent set by Noriega’s 1989 capture.
In that case, U.S. courts ruled that the manner in which a defendant is brought before a court, even through forcible abduction in violation of international law, does not negate jurisdiction.
The moral and legal consequences of the Maduro case, analysts say, will therefore reverberate far beyond the courtroom, shaping the future relevance of the UN Charter; either as the bedrock of global security or, as critics fear, a law without teeth. (NANFeatures)
***If used, please credit the writer and the News Agency of Nigeria.
