OP-ED: Maduro, international law, and the limits of moral purity

The U.S. operation to seize Nicolás Maduro has triggered predictable outcries. Critics denounce it as a kidnapping, a breach of international law that undermines the immunity of heads of state.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Author: Dotan Rousso

The U.S. operation to seize Nicolás Maduro has triggered predictable outcries. Critics denounce it as a kidnapping, a breach of international law that undermines the immunity of heads of state. These concerns deserve to be taken seriously; such actions undeniably shake the pillars of a global order designed to prevent unilateral chaos.

Traditionally, international law has rested on sovereignty as a stabilizing force. The post-1945 legal order was forged to prevent unilateral aggression between coherent states exercising genuine control over their territories and institutions. From this perspective, the criticism of the U.S. operation is not without foundation.

However, as a former criminal prosecutor, I am trained to respect jurisdiction and due process as the lines separating justice from vengeance. Yet an honest evaluation of today’s global landscape suggests that our traditional definitions of sovereignty are increasingly being weaponized by those who least respect the law. The 1945 assumption of state coherence has largely collapsed. When a regime stops merely failing to control organized crime and instead becomes deeply entangled with it, sovereignty ceases to be a shield for order and becomes a cover for transnational harm.

Venezuela under Maduro fits this pattern. The regime’s legitimacy has vanished, elections have lost credibility, and the state has become an operational hub for large-scale narcotics trafficking. For the United States and Canada, this is not an abstract puzzle. Drug trafficking claims roughly 100,000 American lives annually, while Canada faces a devastating fentanyl crisis.

Beyond the human toll, the institutional and financial costs are staggering. We are witnessing the systematic bleeding of public treasuries, the exhaustion of law enforcement, and the erosion of the economic stability of entire communities. These are not episodic tragedies; they are sustained, structural harms, a form of slow-motion aggression that accumulates year after year.

At this point, international law cannot function as a blind demand for obedience detached from conduct. Like any treaty, it presupposes participation and good-faith commitment. States that wish to benefit from the protections of international law must remain meaningfully bound by it. When a regime systematically exits that commitment in practice while continuing to invoke legal immunity for its own protection, the framework ceases to be moral or effective. A system that rewards defection while restraining compliance is not upholding law; it is hollowing it out.

Critics warn that bypassing immunity invites global anarchy. But the “slope” is already greased by regimes that exploit the language of sovereignty to subsidize the destruction of their neighbors. Treating a criminalized leadership with the same deference as a law-abiding head of state does not preserve international law; it ritualizes it. The greater danger is the normalization of absolute impunity for any dictator clever enough to hide behind a national flag.

Removing a leader like Maduro is not a total solution; it must be followed by a structured effort to establish an accountable political order. But in cases where a “sovereign” authority functions as a criminal network, removal is a necessary step rather than a reckless one.

The loudest critics repeat a familiar pattern: they denounce the action as unlawful, then stop. No workable alternative is offered for the human and institutional cost of inaction. This is a chronic moral failure, condemning hard choices while refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of avoiding them. Politics rarely offers clean solutions. Refusing to acknowledge that reality may feel morally comforting, but it does nothing to reduce the suffering that continues while we congratulate ourselves on our principles.

Dotan Rousso is an Israeli-born PhD in law, former state criminal prosecutor and legal adviser to the Israeli Parliament, and a college professor of philosophy in Canada.