Unilateral Abductions and the Erosion of International Legal Order: The Case of Extraterritorial Seizure of Political Leaders
Prof. Dr. Zahurul Alam :
In the prevailing global landscape, a critical and interdisciplinary examination of the legality, legitimacy, and geopolitical ramifications of unilateral military abductions conducted by one sovereign state within the territorial jurisdiction of another is both urgent and necessary, particularly when such actions target senior political figures.
The reported U.S. operation to apprehend Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his spouse exemplifies this concern.
Grounded in core tenets of international law, including the United Nations Charter, customary legal norms, and international human rights instruments, this analysis argues that such extraterritorial interventions constitute serious breaches of fundamental legal principles, notably the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition against interference in the domestic affairs of other nations, and the guarantee of due process under international law.
Beyond legal infractions, it is important to interrogate the ethical dimensions of state-led abductions, exploring their implications for global norms of justice, respect for national dignity, and the erosion of diplomatic dialogue as a conflict resolution mechanism.
We further examine the chilling effects of these practices on weaker states, which may be rendered vulnerable to coercive practices by more powerful actors.
From a diplomatic perspective, such conduct threatens to destabilize international relations, provoke retaliatory measures, and erode the credibility of multilateral institutions meant to uphold peace and stability.
Finally, let us argue that tolerating or normalizing such practices poses a systemic threat to the international legal order, potentially replacing rule-based governance with arbitrary force.
When powerful states bypass established legal mechanisms in favor of unilateral coercion, it signals a retreat from global consensus and opens the door to a dangerous precedent in which might substitutes for legitimacy.
Through doctrinal analysis, historical precedents, and policy critique, we strive to contribute to a deeper understanding of the risks such actions pose to international peace, human dignity, and the integrity of sovereign coexistence.
The extraterritorial use of force to detain individuals, particularly high-ranking political figures, poses a direct challenge to the foundational norms of the international legal system.
In 2026, the attempted kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. reignited critical debate over state sovereignty, the use of force, and the erosion of peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms.
We attempt to explore the legal, ethical, and diplomatic implications of such actions and their compatibility with the global order established under the United Nations Charter.
The UN Charter, prohibits the threat or use of force “against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
This rule is considered a fundamental principle of international law that cannot be broken under any circumstances. The only exceptions recognized under international law are:
* Self-defense under following an armed attack, and
* UN Security Council authorization.
The use of force to seize a sitting head of state on foreign soil, absent either condition, constitutes a prima facie violation of the Charter. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in Nicaragua v.
United States (1986), affirmed that unauthorized interventions, even when politically or morally justified, contravene international law when they bypass state consent and violate sovereignty.
Diplomatic Law and Immunity of Heads of State
International law accords special protection to incumbent heads of state. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary international law establish immunities from prosecution and arrest for heads of state while in office.
Even in cases involving grave allegations, mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) operate within legally defined jurisdictional frameworks.
The seizure of a foreign president without host state consent or international mandate breaches both personal immunity and functional immunity, creating serious precedential concerns.
The ICJ’s jurisprudence further underscores that such immunities apply even where grave crimes are alleged, unless lifted by the relevant international tribunal or through regime change by the domestic legal system.
Human Rights and Due Process Violations
Apart from sovereignty concerns, unilateral abductions violate individual rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): i) Protection from arbitrary arrest or detention; and ii) Right to a fair trial by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.
By circumventing judicial extradition, military seizures deny the accused access to due process.
Practices of extraordinary rendition, widely condemned by bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee, illustrate the broader human rights implications of such state behavior.
From an ethical standpoint, cross-border abductions reflect a shift from a rules-based order to a power-based order.
The deployment of force without legal authorization undermines legitimacy, erodes mutual trust, and weakens multilateralism. When powerful states bypass international norms, they encourage reciprocal actions, weakening global legal constraints.
The Maduro case raises additional ethical concerns: it delegitimizes domestic political representation, substitutes legal procedure with coercive diplomacy, and signals that military power can substitute for negotiation or adjudication.
These tendencies run counter to the UN Charter’s purpose of maintaining peace through legal instruments and diplomatic processes.
The unilateral use of force for cross-border seizures has historical precedent. During the 2000s, the United States and allies engaged in “extraordinary renditions” of terrorism suspects.
These actions, although often extrajudicial, were at times tacitly supported by host states or allied regimes.
However, applying this logic to the political leadership of sovereign states represents an escalation that fundamentally destabilizes international political equality.
Moreover, such practices bypass peaceful mechanisms for justice. Institutions like the International Criminal Court, ad hoc tribunals, or bilateral extradition treaties exist precisely to handle high-level accountability without resorting to coercive violation of sovereignty.
The Rome Statute provides a structured pathway for bringing accused leaders to justice, one that respects due process and multilateral consent.
Diplomatically, abductions of state leaders strain bilateral relations, polarize regional blocs, and invite retaliatory policies.
In Latin America, U.S. actions have long been perceived through a lens of interventionism and domination: from the 1973 Chilean coup to the invasion of Panama (1989).
The Maduro incident reinforces fears of neo-colonialism and could catalyze further erosion of Western diplomatic credibility in the Global South.
In the long term, the normalization of such conduct threatens the international order itself. The principle of sovereign equality, embedded in the UN Charter, becomes hollow if certain states reserve the right to act extra-judicially without consequence.
The unilateral abduction of political figures, especially sitting heads of state, constitutes a violation of international law, an affront to human rights, and a diplomatic provocation with dangerous precedents. Such actions undermine the norms of peaceful resolution, reinforce global inequality, and weaken the collective trust essential for cooperation among nations.
States must reaffirm their commitment to legal mechanisms for accountability. The international community, including regional organizations and neutral states, should push for:
* Stronger legal protections against extraterritorial enforcement actions;
* Reinforced obligations to respect state sovereignty;
* Renewed investment in multilateral institutions capable of enforcing international criminal law lawfully.
Above all, the international order must not yield to the logic of domination. Preserving peace, dignity, and justice requires reaffirming the primacy of law over force, and cooperation over coercion.
(The author: Dean
School of Business
Canadian University of Bangladesh.
E-mail: [email protected])