By By Rosy Mylene Meza. 

Abonnez-vous au canal Telegram Strategika pour ne rien rater de notre actualité

Pour nous soutenir commandez les livres Strategika : “Globalisme et dépopulation” , « La guerre des USA contre l’Europe » et « Société ouverte contre Eu

Rosy Mylene Meza is a doctor of American Jurisprudence, attorney at law and foreign affairs analyst.

Here is a short and sweet outline of the probable and possible violations of
both the customary laws of war and established International Law by virtue
of the incursion of US special forces into Venezuelan sovereign territory
within the mandate of Operation Absolute Resolve, execution date of
January 3, 2026. Included in this brief outline are also the possible
violations of Criminal International Law incurred by the United States of
America given the kidnapping and abduction of a sovereign foreign leader.

1) Violation of State Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: A state
engaging in the abduction and removal of a sovereign leader without
the host country’s express consent is violating the territorial
sovereignty and political independence of that state. This is a core
norm of international law enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state. Washington’s
abduction and kidnapping of President Nicolas maduro therefore
violates basic principles of codified International Law.
2) Head of State Immunity: Sitting heads of state, heads of
government, and foreign ministers are granted immunity (ratione
personae) from criminal prosecution in foreign courts to ensure they
can perform their diplomatic duties effectively without fear of arrest.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has upheld this principle.
Nicolas Maduro was the sitting Head of State at the time of his
forceful removal from the bedroom he and his wife occupied in
the Presidential Palace of Venezuela.
3) Absence of Legal Justification for Use of Force: The only
internationally recognized justification for the use of force is the
right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or with
authorization from the UN Security Council. Drug trafficking or
other alleged crimes do not justify an armed incursion to
capture a leader without an armed attack having occurred. In the
kidnapping and abduction of Nicolas Maduro there is NO justification

of self-defense that can be adduced by members of the US Special
forces team involved in the abduction, nor by President Donald J.
Trump, nor by Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth nor by Secretary
of State Marco Rubio, who graduated from my Alma Mater. Eum
pudeat.
4) Breach of Extradition Norms: The legal way to bring an individual
from another country to stand trial is through established
extradition processes, usually governed by treaties and with the
cooperation of local authorities. Unilateral abduction bypasses
these legal procedures and is contrary to the international legal
order. Operation Absolute Resolve has been and is violative of this
norm.
5) Act of Aggression: Depending on the scale and context, an armed
attack and abduction of a head of state could be defined as an « act of
aggression » under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, which
engages the international responsibility of the acting state for an
internationally wrongful act. 
Here are the Heavies of Operation Absolute Resolve, in terms of the
personal and criminal liability of the CHAIN OF COMMAND involved
therein.
6) The UN Convention Against Torture is implicated. The act of
kidnapping or abducting a sovereign head of state is a profound
violation of International Law, primarily the principles of state
sovereignty, supra, and the personal inviolability and immunity
granted to sitting heads of state under customary international law.
The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) may be violated
depending on the specific circumstances of the abduction. President
Nicolas Maduro was seen LIMPING after his arrival in US soil
following his forceful removal from the Presidential Palace in
Caracas, Venezuela on January 3, 2026 by US Special Forces. Note:
there is a form of “STRICT LIABILITY” for torture. In other words, the
prohibition against torture is an absolute and a non-derogable

human right. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION NOR DEFENSE UNDER
LAW for the commission of torture.

7) Soldiers face personal criminal liability for war crimes under
International Law, meaning they can be prosecuted individually
for committing, attempting, aiding, abetting, planning, or instigating
violations of the laws of war, regardless of orders. This responsibility
extends to commanders for failing to prevent, repress, or report
crimes, holding them accountable if they knew or should have known
about violations and had the power to stop them, establishing
individual accountability beyond just state responsibility. U.S. Navy
Admiral Alvin Holsdey retired in December 2025 after
relinquishing command of U.S. Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM) in a ceremony on December 12, 2025, ending a
distinguished 37-year career amidst increased tensions and military
operations in the Caribbean and off Venezuela. Significantly, Admiral
Holsdey’s early departure followed reports of disagreements
with Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth regarding escalating anti-
drug strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean Sea and the
Eastern Pacific Ocean.
The above is a brief analysis. Chain of Command liability and culpability
may well extend to the Oval Office. As the Chief Commander of the US
Armed Forces, Donald J. Trump may face severe criminal and civil liability
in future. This is unfortunate. President Trump has been profoundly ill-
advised.
This article is dedicated to the memory of Lieutenant Commander John F.
Cleater, of the US Navy, and First Lieutenant Clifford R. Williams, of the US
Army Special Forces. Semper Fi.
Rosy Mylene Meza
Juris Doctor