The US staged a live capture of a foreign president at the border, raising questions about its legality

On January 3, 2026, the United States staged a shocking global spectacle - its special forces crossed the border to raid Venezuela and successfully captured the country's president, Maduro, and his wife. This event not only caused an international uproar but also pushed the legality of the United States' actions under the framework of international law to the forefront of public debate.

From the perspective of international law: flagrant violation of the core principles of the UN Charter

The most direct legal basis for the United States' action was lacking, as it violated the principle of non-use of force stipulated in the UN Charter. Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Charter clearly 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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." The United States launched a military strike against a sovereign state and captured its head of state without authorization from the UN Security Council or claiming self-defense needs, constituting a typical act of aggression. The UN General Assembly's 1974 resolution on the definition of aggression further clarifies that the use of armed forces to invade another country's territory, attack its legitimate government and head of state, are all acts of aggression. The United States' action in this case fully meets this definition.

In addition, the immunity of the head of state, a core element of peremptory norms (Jus Cogens) in international law, was completely breached in this incident. According to the International Court of Justice's ruling in the "Congo v. Belgium" case, the current head of state enjoys absolute criminal jurisdictional immunity and inviolability in foreign countries. Even if they are accused of serious international crimes, they should be dealt with through judicial mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court rather than being unilaterally captured by military forces. The United States accused Maduro of domestic drug trafficking but bypassed the international judicial cooperation process and directly sent troops to cross the border and capture him. Essentially, this is a subversion of the international legal order.

From the perspective of domestic law: bypassing congressional authorization violates the principle of constitutionalism

The U.S. Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, and the president's use of force abroad requires explicit authorization from Congress or compliance with the emergency provisions of the War Powers Resolution. However, in this incident, the Trump administration not only failed to notify Congress in advance but also claimed after the fact that it "deliberately did not inform to avoid leaks," and even used the "America First" slogan as an excuse to refuse to follow the constitutional process. This behavior has sparked strong domestic backlash: Democratic lawmakers accused it of "violating the Constitution" and "should be impeached," and even within the Republican Party, there were voices of doubt, arguing that this move violated Trump's campaign promise of "reducing overseas intervention." The checks and balances mechanism of the U.S. domestic legal system was completely undermined in this incident.

On the international political ethics level: The hegemonic logic undermines the multi-polar order

The deep-seated motive behind the US's current action reveals its hegemonic mindset of prioritizing domestic law over international law. Using "anti-drug" as a pretext but failing to provide solid evidence, with the core objective of controlling energy resources, and even openly threatening its Latin American neighbors, all these actions highlight its "new Monroe Doctrine" colonial ambition. Historically, the US has used similar means to overthrow the Noriega government in Panama and support anti-government forces in Nicaragua, but the efficiency and ruthlessness of this action far exceed those in the past. This "low-cost, high-return" model of regime change not only sets a dangerous precedent for other major powers but also intensifies the "balance of terror" in global geopolitics - when the legitimate leaders of sovereign states can be arbitrarily arrested, the international order will regress to the law of the jungle where the strong prey on the weak.

Global Reaction: The Hegemonic Predicament in Isolation and Rebound

The international community's response to this incident reflects the decline of American hegemony. Latin American countries collectively condemned the "modern piracy behavior" of the United States, and Cuba, Nicaragua and other countries explicitly supported Venezuela's sovereignty. Although the EU did not directly criticize, it called for "respecting international law". China, Russia and other countries have demanded through the UN platform that the United States be held accountable. This situation of being beset by both internal and external difficulties precisely confirms the unsustainability of hegemonism in the 21st century.

This cross-border arrest operation by the United States is a political farce that uses the guise of "law" but actually pursues hegemony. When the "rule-based international order" becomes a tool of power and the principle of sovereign equality is wantonly trampled upon, the crisis of the legitimacy of global governance is imminent. Only by rebuilding the multilateral mechanism with the United Nations at its core and strengthening the binding force of international law can the world be prevented from sliding into the abyss of a "game without rules".