Hawzah News Agency- In a legal note examining what he describes as the phenomenon of “presidential kidnapping” in contemporary international relations, Hojatoleslam Raji argues that such an act—carried out without authorization from the United Nations Security Council and justified solely through unilateral interpretations of US domestic law—amounts to military aggression and state-sponsored abduction under international law.
According to Raji, from the standpoint of classical international law and the UN Charter, the forcible seizure of the Venezuelan president is considered illegal by the vast majority of independent legal experts and by most countries around the world.
Clear Violation of National Sovereignty
One of the most fundamental principles violated by such an action is national sovereignty. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
“A military operation targeting the capital of a sovereign country such as Caracas, culminating in the abduction of its sitting president, is a textbook violation of this principle,” Raji notes. He emphasizes that no mandate or authorization was issued by the UN Security Council for such an operation, rendering it unlawful under international law.
Immunity of Heads of State
Another central legal issue concerns the immunity enjoyed by heads of state under customary international law. As long as a president or head of government remains in office, they enjoy absolute immunity from arrest or prosecution by foreign jurisdictions.
Legal experts stress that even if a US court were to issue an arrest warrant, neither US law enforcement agencies nor the military have the legal authority to enforce that warrant on the territory of another sovereign state or against its sitting president. Any attempt to do so constitutes a direct breach of international legal norms.
No Legal Basis for ‘Self-Defense’ Claims
Washington has attempted to justify such actions under the pretext of “self-defense” or the fight against terrorism and transnational crime. However, international lawyers reject this argument, noting that allegations of drug trafficking—regardless of their veracity—do not meet the threshold of an “armed attack” under international law.
Under the UN Charter, the right to self-defense applies only in response to an actual armed attack. Criminal accusations, including drug-related charges, do not provide legal grounds for a military assault or forcible abduction of a foreign leader.
US Legal Maneuvering and Unilateral Interpretations
To bypass these international constraints, the United States has relied on a set of controversial legal maneuvers previously employed in cases such as the 1989 abduction of Panama’s president, Manuel Noriega.
One such tactic involves domestic criminalization. US authorities have sought to redefine the Venezuelan president not as a legitimate head of state but as the alleged leader of a criminal organization, often referred to as the “Los Soles cartel.” By framing the issue as “narco-terrorism,” Washington claims that the president has forfeited his political immunity.
Another pillar of the US argument is extraterritorial jurisdiction. US courts assert that if an alleged crime occurs outside US borders but produces effects within the United States—such as the importation of illegal drugs—then US judicial authorities have the right to claim jurisdiction.
International legal scholars widely reject both arguments, describing them as unilateral, politically motivated, and incompatible with the international legal order.
Global Legal Assessment: An Act of Aggression
While the United States may attempt to legitimize such actions through its domestic legal framework and military power, the broader international community views them quite differently. In the eyes of international courts and legal bodies, including those based in The Hague, the forcible seizure of a sitting president is classified as an “act of aggression” and a clear case of “state kidnapping.”
Legal experts warn that normalizing such practices undermines the foundations of international law, weakens the principle of sovereign equality, and sets a dangerous precedent that could destabilize global order.
As Raji concludes, the issue is not merely about Venezuela, but about whether international law will be upheld or subordinated to the unilateral will of powerful states.
Your Comment