🔗 Share this article

Early Monday, a shackled, jumpsuit-clad Nicolás Maduro exited a armed forces helicopter in New York City, surrounded by federal marshals.

The Venezuelan president had been held overnight in a notorious federal facility in Brooklyn, prior to authorities transferred him to a Manhattan court to answer to legal accusations.

The Attorney General has asserted Maduro was brought to the US to "answer for his alleged crimes".

But international law experts challenge the lawfulness of the administration's actions, and argue the US may have violated global treaties governing the armed incursion. Domestically, however, the US's actions fall into a juridical ambiguity that may still lead to Maduro standing trial, irrespective of the events that brought him there.

The US maintains its actions were legally justified. The government has accused Maduro of "narco-terrorism" and enabling the shipment of "thousands of tonnes" of narcotics to the US.

"All personnel involved conducted themselves professionally, decisively, and in full compliance with US law and official guidelines," the top legal official said in a release.

Maduro has long denied US accusations that he oversees an criminal narcotics enterprise, and in the federal courthouse in New York on Monday he pled of innocent.

Global Law and Action Concerns

While the accusations are focused on drugs, the US pursuit of Maduro follows years of censure of his leadership of Venezuela from the wider international community.

In 2020, UN investigators said Maduro's government had carried out "serious breaches" amounting to crimes against humanity - and that the president and other high-ranking members were connected. The US and some of its partners have also accused Maduro of rigging elections, and did not recognise him as the rightful leader.

Maduro's claimed ties with narco-trafficking organizations are the centerpiece of this prosecution, yet the US tactics in putting him before a US judge to face these counts are also under scrutiny.

Conducting a military operation in Venezuela and taking Maduro out of the country in a clandestine nighttime raid was "a clear violation under international law," said a professor at a law school.

Legal authorities pointed to a number of problems stemming from the US mission.

The UN Charter prohibits members from armed aggression against other countries. It authorizes "military response to an actual assault" but that threat must be imminent, experts said. The other provision occurs when the UN Security Council sanctions such an operation, which the US lacked before it took action in Venezuela.

Treaty law would regard the narco-trafficking charges the US alleges against Maduro to be a law enforcement matter, experts say, not a armed aggression that might justify one country to take armed action against another.

In comments to the press, the government has characterised the operation as, in the words of the foreign affairs chief, "basically a law enforcement function", rather than an hostile military campaign.

Historical Parallels and US Legal Debate

Maduro has been formally charged on narco-terrorism counts in the US since 2020; the federal prosecutors has now issued a updated - or amended - formal accusation against the South American president. The executive branch essentially says it is now executing it.

"The action was executed to facilitate an active legal case related to large-scale narcotics trafficking and connected charges that have incited bloodshed, upended the area, and contributed directly to the narcotics problem claiming American lives," the AG said in her remarks.

But since the operation, several scholars have said the US broke international law by extracting Maduro out of Venezuela unilaterally.

"A sovereign state cannot invade another independent state and arrest people," said an expert on global jurisprudence. "In the event that the US wants to apprehend someone in another country, the established method to do that is a legal process."

Regardless of whether an person faces indictment in America, "The US has no legal standing to operate internationally serving an arrest warrant in the jurisdiction of other independent nations," she said.

Maduro's legal team in court on Monday said they would dispute the lawfulness of the US operation which transported him from Caracas to New York.

There's also a long-running legal debate about whether commanders-in-chief must follow the UN Charter. The US Constitution regards accords the country enters to be the "highest law in the nation".

But there's a clear historic example of a previous government claiming it did not have to observe the charter.

In 1989, the US government captured Panama's military leader Manuel Noriega and brought him to the US to answer drug trafficking charges.

An internal DOJ document from the time stated that the president had the constitutional power to order the FBI to detain individuals who broke US law, "even if those actions breach traditional state practice" - including the UN Charter.

The author of that memo, William Barr, became the US attorney general and brought the first 2020 indictment against Maduro.

However, the opinion's reasoning later came under questioning from legal scholars. US courts have not explicitly weighed in on the issue.

Domestic War Powers and Legal Control

In the US, the matter of whether this mission violated any domestic laws is complex.

The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, but makes the president in charge of the armed forces.

A War Powers Resolution called the War Powers Resolution establishes restrictions on the president's power to use the military. It mandates the president to notify Congress before sending US troops overseas "in every possible instance," and report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces.

The government did not provide Congress a heads up before the mission in Venezuela "to ensure its success," a cabinet member said.

However, several {presidents|commanders