Maduro’s Capture and International Law: The Noriega Precedent

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.