By Joshua Biem
The arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by the United States (U.S) under President Donald Trump represents one of the most consequential moments in modern international relations. This incident comes thirty-six years after a similar U.S. action led to the arrest of Manuel Noriega in Panama. Two incidents where a sitting or de facto head of state has been directly apprehended through the unilateral action of a major power outside a multilateral judicial framework. While the U.S. government has justified the arrest on grounds ranging from narcotics trafficking to gross human rights violations, the broader significance of this moment extends far beyond Venezuela or Maduro himself. At its core, the arrest signals a profound shift in how justice, power, and foreign policy intersect. It challenges longstanding assumptions about sovereignty, immunity, and the role of international institutions in enforcing accountability. More critically, it raises an uncomfortable question for the global order: has justice become another instrument of geopolitical dominance?
This piece examines the arrest beyond a moral judgment on Maduro’s record, but as a systemic turning point. One that could reshape international law, global governance, and the behaviour of authoritarian and democratic states alike.
From Multilateral Accountability to Unilateral Enforcement
For decades, the architecture of international justice has restedat least in principle on multilateralism. Institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), ad hoc tribunals, and UN-backed investigative mechanisms were designed to ensure that accountability transcends national interests. Their legitimacy derives from collective consent, procedural safeguards, and legal restraint. The U.S. arrest of Maduro marks a decisive departure from this tradition. Rather than deferring to international judicial processes, the U.S government acted unilaterally, asserting jurisdiction and enforcement authority over a foreign leader. This move effectively collapses the distinction between international justice and national law enforcement, substituting collective legitimacy with raw enforcement capability. Supporters argue that this marks the end of impunity for authoritarian leaders who have long exploited weak international mechanisms. Critics counter that it represents the privatisation of justice by power, where accountability is determined not by universal norms but by geopolitical leverage.
The Precedent That Redefines Sovereignty
The most far-reaching consequence of Maduro’s arrest is the precedent it establishes for the treatment of sovereignty in international politics. Sovereignty has never been absolute, but it has historically afforded sitting leaders a degree of insulation from direct external enforcement, despite any flaws in their governance records. By arresting Maduro, the United States has effectively asserted that de facto power, not formal office or institutional process, determines vulnerability to enforcement. This logic echoes the 1989 arrest of Panama’s Manuel Noriega, whose capture followed a U.S. military invasion justified through criminal indictments rather than multilateral authorisation. While Noriega’s case occurred in a Cold War context, it nevertheless marked an early moment when criminal law was fused with strategic intervention to override sovereignty.
The Maduro arrest goes further by normalising this approach outside the context of invasion or regime collapse, lowering the threshold for action from an exceptional circumstance to a policy option. This shift will reverberate globally. Leaders in fragile democracies, military regimes, and hybrid systems are now compelled to reassess their exposure not to international courts, but to the unilateral reach of powerful states. The benchmark for intervention has moved away from institutional consensus toward strategic calculation. For the Global South, where memories of interventionism remain acute, this development is particularly destabilising. The Maduro arrest risks reinforcing perceptions already sharpened by the Noriega precedent that international law is enforced hierarchically rather than universally, deepening scepticism toward global justice norms and eroding confidence in equality before the law.
Justice or Strategic Signalling?
While the arrest is framed as a legal action, its political signalling is unmistakable. It demonstrates the United States’ willingness to convert moral condemnation into coercive enforcement. In doing so, it collapses diplomacy, justice, and deterrence into a single act. The fusion carries risk. Justice pursued primarily as a signal can become selective, episodic, and instrumental. If accountability is activated only against adversaries while allies remain shielded, its normative value erodes. Over time, this risks transforming justice from a principle into a tool for enforcing alignment. Moreover, the arrest strengthens the argument that legal accountability is no longer neutral terrain. For states already sceptical of Western-led norms, this moment may accelerate disengagement from international legal institutions altogether.
Domestic Politics and the Performance of Power
The arrest must also be understood within the context of U.S. domestic politics. Trump’s political identity has consistently emphasised decisiveness, strength, and disruption of established norms. Translating these traits into foreign policy, the arrest serves not only as enforcement but also as aperformance, a demonstration of authority to both domestic and international audiences. However, when justice becomes performative, it becomes volatile. Enforcement decisions risk being shaped by political incentives rather than consistent legal standards. This undermines predictability, complicates alliance management, and weakens the credibility of future accountability efforts. For international partners, the concern is not the arrest itself, but the absence of institutional guardrails governing when and how such actions are taken.
Regional Fallout and Human Security Risks
Domestically, Maduro’s arrest introduces acute uncertainty into an already fragile political system. Venezuela’s governance structure is highly centralised and sustained through personalised authority, security sector loyalty, and patronage networks. The sudden removal of the regime’s central figure risks creating elite fragmentation and institutional paralysis. In such contexts, historical experience suggests that security actors often respond by intensifying repression to preserve regime continuity. Civil society organisations, opposition actors, journalists, and humanitarian groups may face heightened surveillance, criminalisation, and violence, particularly if they are perceived as beneficiaries of foreign intervention. Rather than opening political space, the arrest may initially shrink it, increasing risks to personal safety, livelihoods, and access to essential services. Economic disruption is another immediate concern. Political uncertainty may further weaken currency stability, disrupt supply chains, and exacerbate food and health insecurity for vulnerable populations already facing chronic deprivation.
Regionally, the arrest heightens risks across Latin America, where migration systems, public services, and political cohesion are already under strain. Venezuela remains one of the largest displacement crises globally, and renewed instability could trigger additional refugee flows into neighbouring countries such as Colombia, Peru, Brazil, and Caribbean states. Host countries, many of which are facing economic slowdowns and domestic political pressures, may struggle to absorb new arrivals, increasing the likelihood of social tension, xenophobia, and restrictive migration policies. The erosion of regional consensus over the arrest also risks paralysing cooperative mechanisms needed to manage displacement, humanitarian response, and border security.
Beyond Latin America, the arrest signals a potential shift in how accountability is pursued globally. If unilateral enforcement becomes normalised, states, particularly authoritarian and fragile regimes, may prioritise regime survival over civilian protection. This recalibration risks accelerating repression, shrinking civic space, and weakening safeguards for human rights defenders and independent media. Civilian populations may become collateral victims of defensive state behaviour, as governments harden against perceived external threats. Over time, this dynamic undermines the preventive logic of human security by increasing instability, displacement, and the risk of conflict.
The Global Authoritarian Response
Perhaps the most ironic consequence of the arrest is its potential to strengthen authoritarian solidarity. Leaders who previously disagreed ideologically may now find common cause in resisting what they perceive as enforcement overreach. Strategic partnerships, legal counter-narratives, and alternative institutions may gain momentum as a defensive response. Rather than isolating authoritarianism, weaponised justice may unintentionally accelerate bloc formation, deepening global fragmentation and undermining cooperation on transnational challenges.
The arrest of Nicolás Maduro forces a reckoning: international justice can no longer rely solely on moral authority, yet unilateral enforcement risks hollowing out its legitimacy. The failure of institutions like the ICC to consistently deliver accountability has created space for power-driven alternatives. But these alternatives may ultimately weaken the system they seek to correct. The challenge is not choosing between impunity and unilateralism, but rebuilding credible, inclusive, and enforceable multilateral justice mechanisms that command global confidence.
Recommendations
1. Codify Limits on Unilateral Enforcement: Major powers should initiate structured international dialogue through the United Nations, regional organisations, or dedicated legal forums to clarify the legal and normative boundaries governing unilateral arrests of foreign leaders. Clear thresholds, procedural safeguards, and transparency requirements are necessary to prevent the selective or politicised use of enforcement powers. Without agreed limits, unilateral actions risk eroding sovereignty norms, encouraging retaliatory practices, and weakening trust in international law as a neutral system.
2. Reform and Empower Multilateral Justice Institutions: The arrest underscores longstanding credibility and enforcement gaps within multilateral justice mechanisms. Addressing these deficiencies requires sustained political commitment, predictable funding, and meaningful institutional reform, including greater representation of Global South perspectives in decision-making processes.
3. Establish Post-Arrest Stabilisation Frameworks: Accountability actions should be embedded within comprehensive post-arrest stabilisation strategies. These frameworks must integrate diplomatic engagement, humanitarian planning, security sector oversight, and governance support to mitigate power vacuums and protect civilian populations.
4. Insulate International Justice from Domestic Political Cycles: Democratic states should establish institutional safeguards that separate accountability decisions from electoral pressures and partisan agendas. Independent prosecutorial authorities, legislative oversight, and continuity mechanisms across administrations are essential to ensure that international justice is applied consistently, credibly, and without short-term political considerations.
(Joshua Biem is a Senior Policy and Research Analyst at Nextier. He is a first-class International Relations and Diplomacy graduate from Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State)
