The United States' forced arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026 presents fundamental and unprecedented international legal issues. This article analyzes the legality of the operation using the Doctrinal Legal Research approach by examining three main issues: whether the operation violated Article 2 paragraph (4) of the UN Charter, whether Maduro is entitled to the immunity of the head of state (ratione personae) under customary international law, and what are its juridical implications for the rules-based international legal order. The analysis relies on the UN Charter, ICJ jurisprudence, especially the Arrest Warrant case (RDK v. Belgium, 2002), UN UN Resolution No. 3314 (1974), and the doctrine of international legal experts. The article concludes that the operation constituted a multi-layered violation: a violation of Article 2 paragraph (4) because there was no authorization of the UN Security Council nor an armed attack that activated Article 51, potentially meet the aggression qualification under Resolution 3314 (1974), and ignoring the immunity ratione personae of the incumbent head of state. The United States' argument based on Maduro's non-recognition, domestic law enforcement, and narcoterrorism threat does not qualify for a positive international law exception. The rejection of the majority of the international community, including the 125 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, reinforces the normative position that these actions are contrary to the foundations of the international legal order.