The Snatch-and-Grab of Sovereignty and the Erosion of International Law

If the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the shot heard around the world for the 20th century, the dawn raid on the Miraflores Palace on January 3, 2026, represents the death knell for the Westphalian order of the 21st century. When U.S. Special Forces extracted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and transported him to New York to face "narco-terrorism" charges, they did not merely conduct a military operation, they detonated the "nuclear option" in international diplomacy. While the political narrative focuses on the suppression of a "Narco-State," legal observers are grappling with a more terrifying reality. The United States of America has effectively declared that its domestic criminal statutes supersede the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter. We are witnessing the erasure of the distinction between a Sovereign State and a criminal enterprise.

On January 8, 2026, Nicolás Maduro was arraigned in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). He declined to enter a plea, instead reading a prepared statement in which he described himself as a "Prisoner of War" and called the court a "colonial instrument."

The presiding judge entered a plea of "Not Guilty" on Maduro's behalf and denied bail, citing flight risk. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also unsealed a new "Superseding Indictment" expanding the original 2020 charges. This indictment uses the "Kingpin Act" to classify the Venezuelan executive branch as a "Continuing Criminal Enterprise" (CCE), equating it legally with organized crime. This approach preempts any "sovereign immunity" defense by defining the state apparatus as a criminal entity, raising significant concerns among international legal scholars. The event prompts a critical question: Is sovereign immunity still a valid protection for world leaders, or has it become obsolete in the context of aggressive regime change?

The "Kidnapping" Precedent: Resurrecting the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine :

The immediate question confronting the international legal community is the legitimacy of a criminal trial arising from abduction. To a lay observer, kidnapping a defendant appears to be a clear violation of due process, one that should invalidate any subsequent prosecution. Yet American jurisprudence has long insulated itself from this instinctive objection through the Ker–Frisbie doctrine. Its origins lie in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886), and Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952), but the doctrine was given its modern and far-reaching force in United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992). In Alvarez-Machain, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the forcible abduction of a Mexican national by agents acting on behalf of the DEA did not bar his prosecution in a U.S. court, so long as the applicable extradition treaty did not expressly prohibit such conduct. By endorsing the maxim male captus, bene detentus, wrongly captured, properly detained, the United States effectively treats state sovereignty as a logistical obstacle rather than a binding legal constraint.

A central legal issue is head-of-state immunity. Under customary international law, as stated by the International Court of Justice in the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) [Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3], a sitting head of state has absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction. U.S. law departs from this standard. In Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010), the Supreme Court held that foreign official immunity is governed by federal common law and influenced by the Executive Branch through a “Suggestion of Immunity” (SOI). This approach was used in United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 (S.D. Fla. 1990), where the court denied Manuel Noriega's claim to immunity because the United States did not recognize him as Panama's leader. Applying this logic, the U.S. State Department may submit an SOI stating it does not recognize Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela's President due to disputed elections, seeking to remove his immunity. This is problematic because, unlike Noriega, Maduro is still recognized by the United Nations. If U.S. courts allow the Executive to unilaterally withdraw recognition to prosecute a leader, sovereign immunity becomes a discretionary political privilege rather than a legal right.

A strong international law objection arises from Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. The International Court of Justice rejected the U.S. argument that “ideological intervention” justifies the use of force, affirming that non-intervention is absolute regarding a state's political system. The Court also clarified that providing support to non-state actors, even those involved in serious crimes, does not amount to an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter. By equating narcotics trafficking with armed invasion, the United States is not just extending doctrine but redefining the legal concept of war.

This position is further complicated by inconsistency. Since 2022, the United States has positioned itself as a defender of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The international community has been reminded that borders are inviolable and regime change by force is unacceptable. However, the extraction and proposed trial of Maduro contradict these principles. Unlike the approach taken with Saddam Hussein in 2003, when the United States supported the Iraqi High Tribunal to maintain the appearance of local sovereignty, transporting Maduro directly to New York suggests the United States no longer sees international consensus or restraint as necessary.

The Indian Legal Perspective: Would This Stand in New Delhi?

While this article examines U.S. actions, it is important to consider how such a precedent would interact with Indian jurisprudence, which also has a history of extraterritorial jurisdiction and irregular arrests. If a similar "snatch-and-grab" occurred in India, courts would likely refer to two key colonial and post-colonial precedents that closely align with the American approach.

The leading case on the legitimacy of trial following illegal arrest in India is the France v. Great Britain (Savarkar Case) arbitration. In 1910, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar escaped a British ship in Marseilles, France, but was recaptured by a French policeman and returned to the British. The Permanent Court of Arbitration found that, although the arrest violated French sovereignty, it did not affect the British court's authority to try him. This mirrors the U.S. Ker-Frisbie doctrine, indicating that courts generally do not consider the method of a defendant's arrival.

On the issue of jurisdiction over foreigners for crimes committed abroad, the Indian Supreme Court's decision in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay [1957 AIR 857] is instructive. The Court held that jurisdiction under the Indian Penal Code extends to foreigners who initiate an offence outside India if the offence has effects within India. This principle supports the logic behind the “narco-terrorism” charges against Maduro, as the United States argues he is liable for the impact of narcotics in New York.

However, modern Indian constitutional law may differ from the U.S. approach regarding abduction. Unlike the U.S. position in Alvarez-Machain, the Indian Supreme Court, in cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1997 SC 610], has linked the legality of arrest to Article 21 (Right to Life). A state-sponsored kidnapping of a foreign leader could be considered a violation of "procedure established by law," potentially resulting in dismissal. This constitutional protection is not present in the current U.S. approach.

The gravest consequence of this operation is the precedent it sets. If Washington can cite "national security" to arrest a leader in Caracas, what stops China from launching a "police action" to extract Taiwanese leadership? Or Russia from capturing Ukrainian officials under "anti-terror" statutes? By normalizing "snatch-and-grab" operations, the U.S.A risks rendering the United Nations useless. As the docket fills in the Southern District of New York, the ghost of Hugo Grotius weeps, for we have returned to a world where law is merely a suggestion for the strong.

The Author Is An Advocate

Views Are Personal