Absolute Immunity - HUQUQ: Human Rights in Context

Absolute Immunity

The Maduro Case and the Fractured Foundations of Immunity

Research Assistants Comments on Rights, International Law, Jurisprudence Absolute Immunity, Customary International Law, Rule of Law, Sovereign Immunity 0

When National Power Defies International Law On January 5, 2026, Nicolás Maduro stood in a Manhattan federal courtroom, flanked by U.S. marshals, and uttered four words that reverberated far beyond the walls of the courthouse: “I am still president.” The statement was not a boast—it was a legal assertion rooted in one of the oldest and most universally accepted principles of international law: absolute immunity for sitting heads of state. In a dramatic and legally fraught episode, the United States appears to have cast that principle aside, raising urgent questions about the rule of law, the integrity of international norms, and the dangerous precedent of unilateral action. Under customary international law (CIL)—binding on all states, including the United States—a sitting head of state enjoys personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) from the jurisdiction of foreign courts. This immunity is not a courtesy. It is a structural necessity of a world composed of sovereign equals. It ensures that leaders can carry out their functions without fear of politically motivated prosecutions or detentions abroad. The U.S. president benefits from this same shield when traveling overseas. This immunity is so entrenched that it needs no treaty—it is affirmed by the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, and even the U.S. State Department. Crucially, it applies regardless of the nature of the alleged crimes. Even accusations of drug trafficking, corruption, or war crimes do not strip a sitting head of state of this protection while in office. So why did Maduro invoke his status? Because, under […]

Impact of Sovereign and Absolute Immunity on Human Rights

Prof. Souaiaia Comments on Rights Absolute Immunity, Sovereign Immunity 0

by Ahmed E. Souaiaia Those who believe in top-down paradigm for the promotion of human rights norms are given another good example of the misplaced expectations as the new US administration tackles the legacy of abuse and human rights violations. I have consistently argued that legislating through executive order does not necessarily promote the long-term health of a human rights regime. When considering the fact that human rights abuses are primarily carried out by governments, it becomes evident that entrusting the protection of human rights to a government amounts to asking violators to look after the wellbeing of the victims: individuals, minority, and vulnerable groups. Although the Obama administration, through a series of executive orders, intended to end the abusive and illegal practices such as torture and indefinite detention of suspects: In Guantanamo prison alone, a total of 779 people were detained for years, only to release 538 of these people without ever being charged of crime. Additionally, the extrajudicial spying on citizens conceived and practiced by the Bush administration was never fully addressed. Ultimately, the Obama’s executive orders rendered many pending or future court interventions in many of these matters moot. Not giving the courts an opportunity to issue a legal ruling regarding the extent of executive authority will deprive future victims from a powerful legal precedent on the one hand, and leave the door open for future administrations to reverse these executive orders or initiate a new regime of abusive and illegal practices.