FORCE, JURISDICTION AND SOVEREIGN EQUALITY: THE MADURO CAPTURE AS A TEST CASE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW

Abstract

This essay argues that the reported capture and transfer of a sitting Venezuelan President to the United States reveals a structural instability within contemporary international law: the gap between the formal equality of states and the unequal capacity of powerful states to enforce their criminal jurisdiction extraterritorially. The analysis examines three intersecting legal regimes. First, it evaluates the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the principle of non intervention. Second, it considers the customary rule of personal immunity affirmed in matter of Arrest Warrant (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium, 2002), and whether unilateral arrest can lawfully bypass immunity in the absence of Security Council authorisation. Third, it analyses expansive domestic claims of jurisdiction through precedents such as United States v. Noriega and United States v. Alvarez Machain, and their harmony with sovereign equality. The essay does not merely assess the legality of the incident in isolation. It contends 
that the episode illustrates a broader shift from consent-based enforcement to power facilitated enforcement, where accountability claims risk undermining the very legal order they invoke. By situating the incident within UN Charter, immunity doctrine, and transnational criminal enforcement practice, the essay concludes that selective unilateral enforcement, even when framed as criminal justice, destabilises the coherence of international law unless grounded in multilateral legitimacy.