Reframing Personal Immunity: U.S. Criminal Enforcement Against Nicolás Maduro

The proceedings against Nicolás Maduro illuminate how domestic criminal enforcement may render an incumbent foreign Head of State’s personal immunity legally peripheral without formally denying it. By refusing to recognise Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate Head of State, characterising conduct associated with State institutions as narco-terrorism and private criminality, and asserting domestic criminal jurisdiction, U.S. authorities recast the case as an ordinary transnational prosecution. This article argues that such measures obscure the antecedent questions of status and immunity at each stage of the proceedings. Grounded in sovereign equality, personal immunity applies during incumbency irrespective of the gravity or domestic characterisation of the alleged conduct. Maduro’s capture and Rodríguez’s exercise of presidential functions are relevant to whether his incumbency continued, but do not alone establish that his tenure ended. The case demonstrates the risks unilateral criminal enforcement poses to sovereign equality, foreign criminal jurisdiction, and the stability of international law.