With occasion of the most recent crisis between Colombia and Venezuela, in re the capture of the so-called “chancellor” of the FARC, the author of this paper proposes a scientific reading of the case that muddled the relationships among both States, but that at the same time has left important lessons for all. Since the V enezuelan government’ s perception in this case was so quick and confused as well as the resolution with its Colombian homologous, a theoretical framework of analysis is required. That, because, excepting journalistic covering, up to now, we don’t know in our milieu a politico-juridical study that allows to apprehend the international crises and, in what concerns us, the imposition of a new equilibrium. Therefore, the first part of the essay makes reference to the elements of the international crises, its definition, classes and phases for those that cross usually, that is: from the previous uneasiness to the rupture moment, going by the escalade and the distension, until the impact of the crisis, of where all its pedagogic character arises. In addition, next to the observation of the socio-political phenomena, it proceeds, in a second part, to the juridical study of the question, if we accept the failure of one of the paradigms of the foundation and of the of the international law as such, which is that of the sovereignty of the States, in a horizontal system, but in of a permanent evolution. To the point that the territorial sovereignty is not appreciated as absolute and maybe finds in the principle male captus, bene detentus, one of their most revealing exceptions. Are those characteristic or symptom of the international law? Only a critical reading of this dissertation, will allow each one to extract its own conclusions.