By Umar Isa Sulaiman
It is no longer news the United States under President Donald Trump to forcefully arrest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—whether carried out directly or through proxy mechanisms—has reignited one of the oldest and most consequential debates in international relations: Is state sovereignty still the cornerstone of international law, or has it become a convenient fiction selectively observed by powerful states?
At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental question: can one state lawfully apprehend a sitting head of state of another sovereign country without consent, mandate, or collective authorization under international law? The answer, grounded in the United Nations Charter, customary international law, and international criminal jurisprudence, remains overwhelmingly clear – “no”, except in narrowly defined circumstances.
The Classical Pillar of State Sovereignty Under the UN Charter is not a political courtesy; it is a binding legal principle, the constitutional document of the modern international order.
Article 2(1): Sovereign Equality of States begins unequivocally: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.This provision establishes that all states – powerful or weak – are juridically equal. No state may lawfully exercise enforcement jurisdiction within the territory of another without consent.
Article 2(4): Prohibition of the Use of Force, perhaps the most violated yet most cited provision of international law states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
A unilateral operation to arrest a sitting president on foreign soil, absent UN Security Council authorization or a valid claim of self-defense under Article 51 squarely conflicts with this rule.
READ ALSO: Tinubu Condemns Assassination Attempt On Trump
A cursory look at Article 2(7) entails Non-Intervention in Domestic Affairs. The Charter further insulates states from external coercion: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.”
If even the UN itself is restrained, it follows a fortiori that unilateral action by a single state enjoys no greater license.
Emphatically, supporters of unilateral arrest often argue that grave crimes – drug trafficking, crimes against humanity, or corruption – strip leaders of immunity. International law, however, draws a critical distinction between substantive criminal responsibility and procedural immunity.
Immunity Ratione Personae
Under customary international law, sitting heads of state enjoy absolute personal immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction while in office. This principle was affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in: Arrest Warrant Case DRC v. Belgium (2002). The ICJ held: “A Minister for Foreign Affairs… enjoys full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability while in office.”
The Court emphasized that such immunity applies even in cases of alleged international crimes, unless prosecuted by a competent international tribunal or waived by the state concerned.
The ICC and the Limits of International Criminal Jurisdiction
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is often invoked to justify cross-border arrests. Yet the Rome Statute carefully balances accountability with sovereignty. Article 27: Irrelevance of Official Capacity
The ICC rejects immunity before the Court itself. However, this does not grant states carte blanche to enforce arrests unilaterally.
Article 98: Respect for State Immunities. The Statute explicitly restrains cooperation where it would require violating another state’s immunity: “The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender… if it would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to State or diplomatic immunity.”
This was central in the Al-Bashir jurisprudence, where the ICC struggled to reconcile arrest warrants with the immunity of a non-consenting, non-State Party (Sudan).
Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir (ICC Appeals Chamber, 2019)
While controversial, even this decision did not endorse unilateral abductions by foreign powers. Enforcement authority remains collective, not individual.
Unilateral Enforcement: A Return to Power Politics?
The forced apprehension of a foreign leader without Security Council authorization risks reviving a pre-1945 world order – one governed not by law, but by might.
The Nuremberg Principles, often cited to justify accountability, were implemented through collective international mechanisms, not unilateral raids. Similarly, modern accountability – from Slobodan Milošević to Charles Taylor – occurred through international or hybrid tribunals, with state cooperation or post-regime change consent.
What international law does not permit is a powerful state acting as global police, prosecutor, judge, and jailer.
READ ALSO: 2025: CHRICED Criticises Governance Excess, Tasks Tinubu To Implement Oronsaye Report
Is International Law Dead—or Merely Ignored?
International law is not dead, but it is undeniably under siege. Selective enforcement corrodes legitimacy. When legal principles are invoked against adversaries and ignored for allies, law begins to resemble policy.
The danger is not merely academic. Weakening sovereignty erodes protections for all states, particularly developing nations. Today Venezuela; tomorrow any state deemed inconvenient.
As the ICJ cautioned in Nicaragua v. United States (1986): “The use of force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure respect for human rights.”
Adios Sovereignty?
If sovereignty collapses under the weight of unilateral enforcement, international law risks devolving into a tool of convenience rather than a system of restraint. The arrest of a sitting head of state outside international legal frameworks is not progress – it is regression.
True accountability must be lawful, collective, and consistent. Anything less is not justice, but dominance masquerading as legality.
The world must decide: do we still believe in a rules-based international order, or have we quietly said “Adios” to sovereignty itself?
Umar Isa Sulaiman
(a law teacher, practitioner and a public affairs analyst.)