When Power Rewrites Jurisdiction: Legal Implications of Maduro’s Capture, Universal Jurisdiction and Trump’s Nigeria Playbook — Opinion by Dr. Seun Solomon Bakare
In this opinion piece, Dr. Seun Solomon Bakare critically examines the United States’ capture and transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to New York, arguing that while the act may appear morally justified, it presents profound legal and jurisdictional challenges under international law. He contends that the operation represents more than a criminal arrest, instead signalling a dangerous precedent where power, rather than law, determines jurisdiction, forum, and enforcement.
Bakare explains that international law restricts the use of force to narrow circumstances such as self-defence or UN Security Council authorisation, noting that criminal indictments do not justify cross-border military seizures. He argues that doctrines like universal jurisdiction allow prosecution of certain crimes but do not permit armed enforcement on foreign soil, especially against a sitting head of state protected by immunity under international law.
Drawing comparisons with Nigeria’s experience under the Trump administration—through sanctions, visa restrictions, and external pressure—Bakare warns that unilateral enforcement bypassing domestic and regional accountability mechanisms undermines principles such as complementarity, subsidiarity, and regional justice. He cautions that collapsing the distinction between prosecution and regime change risks transforming international criminal law into a contest of raw power, where legality becomes secondary to capability.
The article concludes that without credible domestic and regional accountability systems, global justice risks devolving into coercion by the powerful, threatening the very foundations of the post-1945 international legal order.
In this opinion piece, Dr. Seun Solomon Bakare critically examines the United States’ capture and transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to New York, arguing that while the act may appear morally justified, it presents profound legal and jurisdictional challenges under international law. He contends that the operation represents more than a criminal arrest, instead signalling a dangerous precedent where power, rather than law, determines jurisdiction, forum, and enforcement.
Bakare explains that international law restricts the use of force to narrow circumstances such as self-defence or UN Security Council authorisation, noting that criminal indictments do not justify cross-border military seizures. He argues that doctrines like universal jurisdiction allow prosecution of certain crimes but do not permit armed enforcement on foreign soil, especially against a sitting head of state protected by immunity under international law.
Drawing comparisons with Nigeria’s experience under the Trump administration—through sanctions, visa restrictions, and external pressure—Bakare warns that unilateral enforcement bypassing domestic and regional accountability mechanisms undermines principles such as complementarity, subsidiarity, and regional justice. He cautions that collapsing the distinction between prosecution and regime change risks transforming international criminal law into a contest of raw power, where legality becomes secondary to capability.
The article concludes that without credible domestic and regional accountability systems, global justice risks devolving into coercion by the powerful, threatening the very foundations of the post-1945 international legal order.
When Power Rewrites Jurisdiction: Legal Implications of Maduro’s Capture, Universal Jurisdiction and Trump’s Nigeria Playbook — Opinion by Dr. Seun Solomon Bakare
In this opinion piece, Dr. Seun Solomon Bakare critically examines the United States’ capture and transfer of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to New York, arguing that while the act may appear morally justified, it presents profound legal and jurisdictional challenges under international law. He contends that the operation represents more than a criminal arrest, instead signalling a dangerous precedent where power, rather than law, determines jurisdiction, forum, and enforcement.
Bakare explains that international law restricts the use of force to narrow circumstances such as self-defence or UN Security Council authorisation, noting that criminal indictments do not justify cross-border military seizures. He argues that doctrines like universal jurisdiction allow prosecution of certain crimes but do not permit armed enforcement on foreign soil, especially against a sitting head of state protected by immunity under international law.
Drawing comparisons with Nigeria’s experience under the Trump administration—through sanctions, visa restrictions, and external pressure—Bakare warns that unilateral enforcement bypassing domestic and regional accountability mechanisms undermines principles such as complementarity, subsidiarity, and regional justice. He cautions that collapsing the distinction between prosecution and regime change risks transforming international criminal law into a contest of raw power, where legality becomes secondary to capability.
The article concludes that without credible domestic and regional accountability systems, global justice risks devolving into coercion by the powerful, threatening the very foundations of the post-1945 international legal order.
0 Commenti
·0 condivisioni
·129 Views
