Sovereignty Is Not a Shield for Crime:
The Maduro Case and the Decision of President Donald Trump—Why International Justice Cannot Protect Corrupt Regimes
The Role of the United States and President Donald Trump in Restoring International Accountability: The Fight Against Narco-States and the Protection of the Liberal Democratic Order
By Dr. Mujë Buçpapaj
This study analyzes the evolution of the role of the United States in confronting the phenomenon of narco-states and deeply corrupt regimes, focusing on the approach pursued over the past 12 months by the administration of President Donald Trump. It argues that this political and legal orientation represents a return of the United States as a normative actor in defense of the fundamental principles of liberal democracy and the rules-based international order, in the face of states that function more as criminal structures or narco-states than as functional democracies.
1. Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the Liberal International Order
In contemporary international relations theory, sovereignty is no longer treated as an absolute and unconditional concept, but as a functional category, directly linked to the capacity and willingness of the state to exercise power in accordance with the fundamental norms of the international legal order. In this context, respect for free and fair elections, judicial independence, media freedom, and the effective fight against corruption and illegal trafficking are no longer merely internal matters, but criteria of international legitimacy.
The transformation of the state into an instrument of systemic corruption and transnational organized crime constitutes a structural deviation from the model of the rule-of-law state. In such cases, sovereignty loses its protective function and is transformed into a mechanism of impunity, thereby undermining the international order as a whole.
In the classical tradition of political thought, Thomas Hobbes conceived sovereignty as absolute authority, necessary to avoid a state of anarchy (bellum omnium contra omnes). However, even in the Hobbesian reading, the legitimacy of the sovereign derives from its ability to guarantee security and order. When the sovereign produces insecurity, poverty, and structural violence, it loses its fundamental function.
In the post-1945 international order, this concept has undergone significant transformation. Sovereignty no longer represents merely territorial control, but a legal and normative status conditioned by the internal behavior of the state. Stephen Krasner describes this reality as “organized hypocrisy,” where the formal principle of non-intervention coexists with practices of selective intervention, justified by serious violations of fundamental norms.
Within this theoretical framework, narco-states and deeply corrupt regimes represent forms of functional failure of sovereignty, where the state ceases to act as a guarantor of order and becomes a destabilizing actor.
2. The Trump Administration’s Approach: The Return of International Criminal Accountability
The policies pursued over the past year by the administration of President Donald Trump mark a new phase in American engagement against narco-states and regimes captured by corruption. Unlike more tolerant or technocratic approaches of the past, this administration adopted a substantive interpretation of the international order, where priority is given to the protection of fundamental principles rather than the formal preservation of existing regimes.
The criminal prosecution of state leaders, as in the case of Maduro, involved in international drug trafficking and organized crime, signaled that individual criminal responsibility is not extinguished by holding state office. This approach reinforces a key principle of modern international law: crimes that produce transnational consequences cannot be shielded by exclusive national jurisdiction.
In this context, the United States acted not only as an actor of hard power, but also as a normative guarantor of the liberal democratic order, reaffirming the link between international security and the quality of domestic governance.
3. Functional Democracy as a Global Strategic Interest
One of the most important conceptual contributions of this approach is the reaffirmation of the idea that functional democracy is not an ideological luxury, but a global strategic interest. Free and fair elections, an independent judiciary, free media, and democratic accountability constitute the primary mechanisms for preventing the capture of the state by criminal networks.
In the absence of these mechanisms, states slide toward hybrid or autocratic forms, where political power, economic interests, and organized crime interact symbiotically. These structures not only produce poverty and mass migration, but also destabilize the international order through drug trafficking, money laundering, and the export of insecurity.
The principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), consolidated at the beginning of the 21st century, marks a normative turning point in international law. It affirms that sovereignty entails not only rights, but also obligations toward the population. When a state persistently fails to protect its citizens or becomes a source of suffering and repression, responsibility is gradually transferred to the international community. Although R2P has been articulated primarily in the context of mass atrocities, its normative logic is also applicable to cases in which the state systematically manipulates elections, destroys judicial independence, criminalizes the opposition, and becomes part of transnational drug trafficking networks.
Under such circumstances, as was the case with Venezuelan President Maduro, international inaction does not constitute neutrality, but passive complicity. The United States did not become passively complicit, but instead invested in the defense of democracy.
4. Comparative Implications: The Balkans and the Risk of Normalizing Autocratization
While Latin America presents more visible forms of narco-states, the Balkans offer a more subtle, yet equally troubling, example of institutionalized autocratization. In several countries of the region, manipulation of electoral processes, media control, pressure on the judiciary, and the coexistence of political power with the informal economy have created systems in which political rotation becomes formal rather than real.
In these circumstances, the American approach toward narco-states takes on a warning dimension: international tolerance of democratic deviations contributes to their consolidation. Conversely, political and legal conditionality, supported by powerful actors such as the United States, remains one of the few effective instruments for preserving democratic standards.
President Donald Trump restored the concept of the rule of law to a central place in the liberal democratic order and in contemporary theories of the rule-of-law state. This concept presupposes equality before the law, institutional independence of the judiciary, limitation of executive power, and effective mechanisms of democratic accountability.
When these elements are absent, the state shifts from a legal order to a personalist or kleptocratic regime, where the law is used as an instrument of repression rather than as a mechanism of justice. In this sense, governments that function as criminal structures lose not only their internal legitimacy, but also their claim to unconditional protection under international law.
5. Conclusion
The role of the United States during the Trump presidency in the fight against narco-states and corrupt regimes represents an effort to restore the normative coherence of the liberal international order. By emphasizing responsibility, accountability, and the rule of law, this approach challenges the idea that stability can be built on tolerance of local criminal autocracies.
In an increasingly fragmented international system, where the boundary between the state and criminal organization risks becoming blurred, the active defense of the fundamental principles of democracy remains not only a moral choice, but a strategic necessity for preserving global order.
In this sense, support for the policies of U.S. President Donald Trump is justified and serves the cause of democracy.