On the surface, abducting a Head of State is a piratical act eschewed by States.  A Head of State enjoys absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction, known as ratione personae, at least till the term of office concludes.  The International Court of Justice was clear enough about this principle in the 2002 Arrest Warrant Case, holding that high ranked government officials such as a foreign minister are granted immunity under customary international law to enable the effective performance of their functions “on behalf of their respective States.”

That said, international law has been modified on this score by the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, whose founding Rome Statute stipulates that the official standing of a serving Head of State is no exemption from criminal responsibility.  The effectiveness of this principle lies in the cooperation of State parties, something distinctly unforthcoming regarding certain serving leaders.  (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu springs to mind.)

US domestic law puts all of this to side with the highwayman logic of the Ker-Frisbie doctrine.  Decided in Ker v Illinois in 1886, the decision overlooks the way, lawful or otherwise, a defendant is apprehended, even if outside the jurisdiction.  Once American soil is reached, judicial proceedings can commence without challenge.  The US Department of Justice has further attempted to puncture ancient notions of diplomatic immunity by recategorizing (how else?) the standing of a leader – in this case Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro – as nothing more........

© Eurasia Review