Arrest without authority: Trump, Maduro, and strain on international law

PRESIDENT Donald Trump's address on 3 January announcing the “arrest” of Venezuelan President Nicolés Maduro marks one of the most consequential and controversial assertions of power in contemporary international relations.

- By P.M. Amza

Whether framed as law enforcement, counter-narcotics action, or geopolitical signalling, the declaration has sent shockwaves through diplomatic and legal circles worldwide. Beyond Venezuela, the episode raises fundamental questions about head-of-state immunity, unilateral use of force, selective accountability, and the increasingly fragile foundations of the rules-based international order.

This is not merely a dispute between Washington and Caracas. It is a test case for how international law functions—or fails—when confronted by overwhelming power.

In his address, President Trump claimed that U.S. forces had captured President Nicolas Maduro and transported him to the United States to face charges relating to narcotics trafficking and terrorism. He justified the operation as a necessary act to protect American security, dismantle what he described as a “narco-state” and deliver justice where international mechanisms had allegedly failed.

Trump went further, signalling that the United States would assume a temporary supervisory role in Venezuela during a political transition and indicated that American companies would play a role in rehabilitating Venezuela's oil sector. The speech blended legal rhetoric with strategic messaging, presenting military action as both lawful and morally justified, while offering few references to multilateral authorisation or international legal processes.

The address was also unmistakably political. The language of arrest, justice, and strength echoed domestic campaign themes, reinforcing a longstanding narrative of decisive action against perceived adversaries. In doing so, it blurred the line between international law enforcement and unilateral coercion.