A REPRICE OF A SCENE IN THE DARK KNIGHT: SIMULATION OF HOW US-VENEZUELA SITUATION WOULD PLAY OUT IN COURT

The date is January 3rd, 2026. I am in my room, sitting in front of my computer, hoping that a solution to fixing all my life’s problems will suddenly click in my brain. I’m waiting for that moment when I finally have a plan of action and a clear direction of where my life is supposed to go. So, I read different stuff, write different stuff, and watch different stuff, all with the hope that an idea will pop into my mind and finally chart the course to my life’s ultimate goal.

During this period of sitting at my desk, boom, A YouTube video from Dylan Page plays (shout out to Dylan Page), and he’s reporting on the situation in Venezuela. He’s talking about how dudes got bombed, shot, and how a sitting president—President Maduro—was captured and removed from the country. No due process, just some gangster shit. Literally going into a country, bombing specific places, and letting lead loose in order to kidnap a sitting president so you can prosecute him for offenses that haven't been established beyond a reasonable doubt? That is some gangster activity. In addition, all this is happening on authority USA domestic law. How does ones impose their laws in another house?

So, that’s how this blog post came about. Now, I don’t think this will solve all my life’s problems, but I sure did find interest and some worry in reading up on the situation and creating content around it.

In this post, we are simulating the facts of this matter through the prism of a court of law. We will treat the parties as Venezuela v. United States of America and essentially conduct a legal analysis of the situation through that lens. The analysis of this simulated court judgment is done using the IFRAC method (Issues, Facts, Rules, Application, Conclusion).

Let’s begin with the potential legal issues in Venezuela v. USA.

I. POTENTIAL LEGAL ISSUES

Based on the military insurgence and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, the fictitious Court identifies three primary legal issues for resolution:

1. Violation of Territorial Sovereignty and the Prohibition on the Use of Force: Whether the "Operation Absolute Resolve" conducted by the United States constituted an act of aggression and a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, or whether it can be justified under the doctrine of Self-Defense (Article 51) against "Narco-Terrorism."

2. Immunity Ratione Personae (Head of State Immunity): Whether a sitting Head of State enjoys absolute immunity from arrest and criminal prosecution by a foreign power, or if the designation of the state apparatus as a "criminal enterprise" or "Foreign Terrorist Organization" nullifies this immunity under international law.

3. The Law of Occupation and Pillage: Whether the United States' declaration of intent to "run" Venezuela and utilize its oil reserves for "reimbursement" constitutes a violation of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) governing belligerent occupation, specifically the prohibition against pillage and the rules of usufruct.

   
   

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes notice of the following facts established regarding the events of January 3, 2026:

1. The Incursion: At approximately 02:00 VET, the United States Armed Forces launched "Operation Absolute Resolve." This involved airstrikes by over 150 aircraft targeting Venezuelan military infrastructure (S-300 air defenses and command nodes at Fuerte Tiuna) and a ground incursion by U.S. Special Operations Forces (Delta Force/160th SOAR) into the Miraflores Palace in Caracas.

   
   

2. The Capture: United States forces forcibly seized Nicolás Maduro Moros, the de facto and sitting President of Venezuela, along with his wife, Cilia Flores. They were extracted via helicopter to the USS Iwo Jima in international waters and subsequently transported to New York to face criminal charges. This part of events reminded me of that scen in the Dark Knight wherein Batman goes to Hong Kong in order to capture and return a money launder back in the states for prosecution. Exact same thing, the capture in the Dark Knight involved a highly skilled and armed individual, aircraft and going in there and taking out anything that stands in the way.

   
   

3. The Legal Pretext: The United States Department of Justice unsealed a superseding indictment charging Maduro with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. The U.S. Executive Branch invoked the "unwilling or unable" doctrine, asserting Venezuela was a sanctuary for narco-terrorists threatening U.S. national security.

   
   

4. Post-Capture Declarations: Following the capture, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that the U.S. would "run" Venezuela during a transition period and stated that U.S. oil companies would operate Venezuelan fields to "reimburse" the U.S. for the cost of the operation.

   
   

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND RULES

To resolve these issues, the Court relies on the following sources of International Law:

A. On Sovereignty and Use of Force:

• UN Charter Article 2(4): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."   

• UN Charter Article 51 (Self-Defense): Permits the use of force only if an "armed attack" occurs.   

• The Nicaragua Judgment (1986): The ICJ ruled that supply of arms or logistical support to rebels (or drug trafficking) does not constitute an "armed attack" justifying a military invasion.

B. On Immunity:

• Customary International Law (Immunity Ratione Personae): Incumbent Heads of State enjoy absolute immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction to ensure the effective performance of their functions.

• Arrest Warrant Case (DRC v. Belgium, 2002): The ICJ held that this immunity applies even regarding accusations of war crimes or crimes against humanity while the official is in office. There is no exception in customary international law for "narco-terrorism".

C. On Occupation and Resources:

• Hague Regulations (1907), Article 55: The occupying power shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings and natural resources. It must safeguard the capital of these properties and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct (i.e., resources can be used for the needs of the occupation/population, not for the occupier's enrichment).   

• Geneva Convention IV, Article 33: Prohibits pillage (the rigorous seizure of property for private or state gain).   

  
  

IV. APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE FACTS

1. Resolution of the Use of Force Issue: The United States justifies the incursion under "Self-Defense" against a narco-terrorist threat. However, under the Nicaragua precedent, drug trafficking—even state-sponsored—does not meet the threshold of an "armed attack" required to trigger Article 51. The "unwilling or unable" doctrine is a controversial theory not universally accepted in international law, particularly when applied to overthrowing a government rather than targeting a specific non-state actor (like ISIS).   

• Finding: The aerial bombardment and ground invasion of Caracas constitute a prima facie violation of Article 2(4). ¹  The U.S. lacked a UN Security Council mandate, and the "law enforcement" objective does not justify military invasion.   

  
  

2. Resolution of the Immunity Issue: Nicolás Maduro was physically present in Venezuela as its head of government at the time of capture. While the U.S. "derecognized" him politically, International Law looks to effective control. As the Arrest Warrant case established, even abhorrent crimes do not lift immunity ratione personae for a sitting leader in foreign domestic courts. The Ker-Frisbie doctrine cited by the U.S. is a domestic legal rule that cures jurisdiction in U.S. courts; it has no standing in International Law and does not excuse the breach of Venezuela's sovereign rights.

• Finding: The abduction was an internationally wrongful act violating the immunity owed to a Head of State. The U.S. domestic indictment cannot override international obligations regarding sovereign immunity.

  
  

3. Resolution of the Occupation/Pillage Issue: President Trump's statement regarding the use of Venezuelan oil to "reimburse" the U.S. for the operation indicates an intent to violate Article 55 of the Hague Regulations. An occupier acts as a trustee, not an owner. Extracting resources to pay for the invasion itself (rather than for the benefit of the local population) fits the definition of pillage.

• Finding: The proposed monetization of Venezuelan oil for U.S. reimbursement is unlawful under the Laws of War.

  
  

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT

The simulated International Court , adjudicating a dispute between the State of Venezuela and the United States of America, would likely issue the following orders:

ORDER 1: IMMEDIATE RESTITUTION (RELEASE) The United States is ordered to immediately release Nicolás Maduro Moros and Cilia Flores and facilitate their safe repatriation to Venezuela. The Court finds that the seizure was performed in violation of international norms regarding Head of State Immunity, and the only appropriate remedy for an illegal abduction of a sovereign representative is the restoration of the status quo ante.

ORDER 2: CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES AND WITHDRAWAL The United States must immediately cease all military operations within the territory of Venezuela and withdraw all armed forces and intelligence assets. The Court rejects the justification of "Operation Absolute Resolve" as a lawful exercise of self-defense under Article 51.

ORDER 3: PROHIBITION ON RESOURCE EXTRACTION The United States is strictly enjoined from seizing, selling, or encumbering the natural resources (oil) of Venezuela for the purpose of "reimbursement" or war reparations. Any such action is declared a violation of the obligations of an Occupying Power under the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Disclaimer: The views and analyses expressed on this blog are for informational and educational purposes only. This site serves as a self-guiding diary intended to facilitate my personal understanding of specific subjects and does not serve as an authoritative reference. Information is provided "as is" without any guarantees of completeness or accuracy. Please consult a local, professionally trained individual in the subject matter or you can conduct your own research for any formal inquiries or professional advice