Maduro’s Capture and International Law: The Noriega Precedent
•February 11, 2026
0
Why It Matters
The case tests the limits of U.S. extraterritorial authority and could reshape norms governing sovereign immunity, influencing future multinational law‑enforcement actions.
Key Takeaways
- •U.S. used extraterritorial law to capture Maduro.
- •Noriega case set precedent for unilateral interventions.
- •International law requires host consent or formal extradition.
- •UN and OAS condemned Panama invasion, echoing potential backlash.
- •Precedent may encourage other states to bypass sovereignty norms.
Pulse Analysis
The capture of Nicolás Maduro marks a rare instance of direct U.S. action against a sitting head of state, invoking Justice Department memoranda that extend criminal jurisdiction beyond American borders. By framing the operation as a defensive measure against transnational narcotics networks, U.S. officials seek to legitimize a precedent that bypasses traditional extradition channels. This legal maneuver reflects a broader trend of leveraging national security arguments to expand law‑enforcement reach, raising complex questions about due process and the balance of power between domestic statutes and international law.
Operation Just Cause in 1989, which ousted General Manuel Noriega, serves as the historical template for the Maduro operation. The Panama invasion introduced a policy shift from multilateral cooperation to unilateral military intervention when perceived threats to U.S. interests arise. While the stated objectives—protecting American lives, restoring democracy, and securing the Panama Canal—were politically compelling, they sparked widespread condemnation from the United Nations and the Organization of American States. Critics argue that the action violated the principles of necessity and proportionality, setting a contentious legal benchmark that contemporary policymakers must reckon with.
The broader implications extend beyond the Americas. If the Maduro capture is deemed lawful, it could embolden other powers to conduct similar extraterritorial arrests, eroding the established norms of state sovereignty and non‑intervention. Conversely, sustained international pushback may reinforce the need for clearer extradition frameworks and multilateral oversight. For businesses and investors, the evolving legal landscape signals heightened geopolitical risk, as shifts in enforcement policy can affect stability in regions critical to global supply chains and energy markets. Understanding these dynamics is essential for strategic planning and compliance in an increasingly contested international order.
Maduro’s Capture and International Law: The Noriega Precedent
Maduro’s Capture and International Law: The Noriega Precedent By: David J. Scheffer of Arizona State University |Published by the Council on Foreign Relations on January 6, 2026 12:22 p.m.
The capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro has spurred comparisons to the U.S. operation to arrest and extract Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. A look back at the 1989 case shines a light on emerging questions of international law and U.S. policy.
David J. Scheffer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, with a focus on international law and international criminal justice.
The recent capture of Nicolás Maduro by United States forces prompts a critical examination of the 1989 invasion of Panama and the subsequent arrest of General Manuel Noriega. Ambassador Scheffer’s analysis focuses on the legal frameworks that allow for the extraterritorial reach of U.S. criminal law and the pursuit of sitting heads of state on narcotics-related charges. Central to this discussion are Justice Department memoranda suggesting that U.S. law enforcement and military personnel possess the authority to apprehend fugitives in foreign jurisdictions without local consent. These documents argue that such actions constitute a form of national self-defense against the threats posed by international narcotics trafficking.
The 1989 operation, known as Operation Just Cause, established a policy shift toward direct intervention to remove rogue leaders and promote democratic governance by force. While the U.S. government cited four primary objectives of protecting American lives, restoring democracy, preserving the integrity of the Panama Canal treaties, and apprehending Noriega, these rationales faced significant international scrutiny regarding their consistency with established law. Customary international law typically requires host-government approval or formal extradition treaties to transfer individuals between jurisdictions. The use of unilateral military force to bypass these procedures continues to raise questions about the principles of necessity and proportionality under the United Nations and Organization of American States Charters.
International reactions to such interventions highlight a tension between national security interests and the principle of non-intervention. The 1989 invasion of Panama received widespread condemnation from the UN General Assembly and the Organization of American States (OAS), as many nations viewed the action as a violation of sovereign boundaries. The current situation involving Maduro mirrors these historical challenges, as U.S. officials again frame large-scale narcotics conspiracies as acts of aggression. This precedent carries long-term implications for global stability, as other major powers may cite these examples to justify their own territorial ambitions or unilateral actions in defiance of international legal norms.
Related Works from Small Wars Journal:
Professor Scheffer’s brief, Maduro’s Capture and International law, raises core questions about sovereignty, jurisdiction, and the limits of legal precedent when states act unilaterally. Several recent SWJ articles deepen this discussion by situating the legal debate within broader strategic, political, and enforcement contexts. Ron MacCammon’s analysis, “Power Without Illusion: Global Signals from the U.S. Operation in Venezuela,” is especially relevant, as it examines how the operation itself was interpreted internationally, moving beyond legality to consider signaling, credibility, and second-order effects. Together with the CFR piece, it underscores that capture operations are being judged by courtrooms, geopolitical perception, and response.
Other SWJ featured works expand the legal and normative frame. Elisabeth Baer’s “The Threat of Inaction in Response to Violations of International Law: A Syrian Case Study” highlights how inconsistent enforcement erodes international legal norms, an issue directly implicated in debates over whether the Noriega precedent meaningfully constrains future actions. Similarly, “Weapon of the Weak: Lawfare and State Power in the International Court of Justice” shows how legal forums themselves become instruments of statecraft, complicating claims that legality alone determines legitimacy. Finally, “Non-International Armed Conflict—Current Conceptual Challenges” provides essential background on how modern conflicts strain existing legal categories, reinforcing why cases like Maduro’s sit at the intersection of law, policy, and evolving conflict dynamics. Together, these works help contextualize the CFR argument within the realities of contemporary enforcement, power, and international order.
The post Maduro’s Capture and International Law: The Noriega Precedent appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...