Discover more

Law textbooks and casebooks South Asia rights Legal writing style guides Legal ethics training programs Human rights documentaries Legal news subscriptions

The Leaflet

Does Nicolás Maduro enjoy Head of State immunity? Here’s what International Law tells us | The Leaflet

International Law & World Affairs Explainer

Does Nicolás Maduro enjoy Head of State immunity? Here’s what International Law tells us

The US’s Venezuela operation violates core obligations of the UN Charter, from use of force and aggression, to self defence and territorial sovereignty.

Atul Alexander

Published on: 7 January 2026, 12:57 pm

Does Nicolás Maduro enjoy Head of State immunity? Here’s what International Law tells us

ON JANUARY 3, 2025, the United States (U.S) launched an unprecedented military strike in Venezuela targeting the capital city Caracas and kidnapping the president Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. The operation, referred to as ‘Absolute Resolve’, reported a death toll of eighty civilians and Venezuelan security forces. The operation follows the U.S measures to block the Oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela for alleged drug and human trafficking.

Politically, the aftermath of the attack witnessed mixed reactions from the nation states, reflecting a larger geopolitical fracture. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres termed the event unprecedented and called for respect from all stakeholders. The Chinese Foreign Ministry condemned the use of force by the U.S. against a sovereign country. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump for bold and historic leadership. Unsurprisingly, several Western states took a neutral stance, such as the Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, who called for de-escalation. India adopted a cautious approach, calling for dialogue to ensure peace and stability in the region.

Legally, the attack opens a Pandora’s box of international law obligations, which are alleged to be violated on the one hand and complied with on the other hand. Claims and counterclaims include the use of force, non-recognition of the government's legitimacy, self-defence, law enforcement, state responsibility, sovereignty, and much more.

A major flashpoint is the immunity of Nicolas Maduro as Head of State and its implications with respect to his arrest and indictment. The U.S position can be compared to the indictment and the subsequent arrest of the de facto leader of Panama Manual Noriega, in 1988, for drug trafficking and racketeering. The district court had found that Noriega was not entitled to Head of State immunity because, “the United States government has never accorded Noriega Head of State status but rather continued to recognise President Eric Arturo Delvalle as the legitimate leader of Panama while Noriega was in power.”

Does Maduro enjoy Head of State Immunity?

Nicolas Maduro was a former bus driver and trade union leader before entering Venezuelan politics. From 2006-2013, he served as the Foreign Minister and took over the presidency of the country after the demise of the late president Hugo Chavez.

Firstly, under international law, both the Foreign Minister and Head of State enjoy absolute immunity, which the U.S courts must take into consideration. However, the U.S may contend, as it did previously with Noriega, that Maduro is not recognised as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. Accordingly, the Court, in the words of international law scholar Oona Hathaway, may defer the matter to the executive branch of the government to determine whether Maduro is the Head of State.

This argument can be deeply problematic as recognition of government is a political act, which does not alter the legal right linked with the State, like territorial integrity and sovereignty. As analyst Edmarverson A. Santos notes,“International law distinguishes between the state, which remains a subject of international law regardless of recognition disputes, and the government, whose recognition may vary among states.”

Therefore, immunity operates with the legal template of sovereign equality and is not dependent on the recognition by third States. Thus, a domestic Court interpreting immunity restrictively could destabilise the fabric of the international legal order by politicising immunity.

Secondly, immunity of the Head of State is recognised as customary international law, which binds the State. Customary international law is proved through State practice (general and consistent behaviour) and opinio juris (a belief that practice is legally required). The practice can be derived from the decision of Courts. For instance the Cour de Cassation, France’s highest court, had to decide on the exception to immunity against Muammar Gaddafi for complicity in the bombing of the DC 10 aircraft which resulted in the death of several French nationals. The Court, in that case, held that “international custom precludes practising heads of state from being able, in the absence of contrary international provisions binding on the parties concerned, to be prosecuted before the criminal courts of a foreign State.”

Further, States like Spain and Belgium have narrowed universal jurisdiction for foreign officials claiming immunity. This domestic practice also finds support in international judicial practice. For instance, he ICJ in the Arrest Warrant case, attempted to identify exceptions to immunity, but concluded it was unable to identify this from State practice. Additionally, the executive conduct indicates the practice of States refraining from arresting a Head of State, which can be deciphered from States' reluctance to arrest Gaddafi, Vladimir Putin, and Omar al-Bashir.

Thirdly, as per Article 3 of the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility (Article 3), “the characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. The characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.” Hence, the act of arresting Maduro may be lawful under the domestic law of the U.S, but may still constitute a wrongful act under international law. Thereby the U.S. would have an obligation for reparation, which may include the cessation of the wrongful act.

Some insights from the US strikes in Iran: Aggression and the limits of self-defence