Reports regarding direct American involvement in the apprehension of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, have sparked mixed reactions around the world. There is no point pretending otherwise. Many, myself included, feel a certain sense of satisfaction.
For citizens who have endured years of repression, corruption, violence, and economic collapse, the idea that the individual perceived as responsible may finally be held accountable evokes a powerful sense of justice.
On the international stage, as well, it appears that not a few observers are pleased, even relieved, by the possibility that a criminal regime is paying a price.
Yet for precisely that reason, we must pause and confront the difficult legal question: Is justice that is achieved through the violation of international law still justice, or is it the beginning of a dangerous, slippery slope?
If a state, even one as powerful as the United States, operates outside its sovereign territory and forcibly seizes a sitting president of another country without an extradition process, without a decision by a competent local court, and without an agreed treaty-based framework, it is legally difficult to describe such an act as anything other than state kidnapping.
Global consensus
They are the foundation of the global consensus that states do not act as armed gangs crossing borders, even when the target is despised, corrupt, or violent. These rules exist precisely for hard cases, not convenient ones.
The real danger lies not in the specific case, but in what follows. If a Western power allows itself to bypass treaties, sovereignty, and legal procedures, what argument will remain when other states do the same?
Tomorrow, another state will claim it is merely “implementing justice.” The day after, political dissidents in Europe, exiled journalists, or opposition figures may be abducted under the banner of that same precedent.
It is built on rules designed to protect even those who are unpopular.
There is no dispute that presidents are not above the law. However, international law establishes clear mechanisms: competent courts, extradition proceedings, and, in limited circumstances, narrowly defined exceptions.
A forceful circumvention of these mechanisms does not strengthen the rule of law. It undermines it and sends a dangerous message: power prevails over rules.
I write this with complete honesty.
On a human and moral level, I understand and share the sense of satisfaction felt by many. It is entirely possible that millions feel relief and even joy.
As a lawyer
But as a lawyer, I cannot ignore the legal truth that this is a dangerous precedent. Law is tested precisely in cases where it is easiest to abandon it. If we legitimize unlawful action simply because the outcome pleases us, we lose the moral authority to demand legality and fairness when the same logic is later turned against us.
The struggle against criminal regimes is a just struggle. But justice that does not pass through the law can quickly become a tool of arbitrary power. The real question is not whether we are satisfied today, but whether we can afford the price tomorrow.
The writer is an expert in criminal law, white-collar crime, extradition, and international crime, and is chairman of the Extradition and International Crime Committee at the Israel Bar Association.