🔗 Share this article

This past Monday, a handcuffed, prison-uniform-wearing Nicholas Maduro exited a military helicopter in Manhattan, flanked by armed federal agents.

The leader of Venezuela had been held overnight in a notorious federal facility in Brooklyn, before authorities moved him to a Manhattan courthouse to answer to indictments.

The Attorney General has stated Maduro was delivered to the US to "stand trial".

But legal scholars challenge the lawfulness of the administration's maneuver, and maintain the US may have violated established norms regulating the use of force. Within the United States, however, the US's actions fall into a unclear legal territory that may still lead to Maduro standing trial, despite the methods that led to his presence.

The US asserts its actions were legally justified. The government has accused Maduro of "drug-funded terrorism" and facilitating the transport of "vast amounts" of cocaine to the US.

"The entire team acted with utmost professionalism, decisively, and in complete adherence to US law and official guidelines," the top legal official said in a statement.

Maduro has long denied US allegations that he manages an criminal narcotics enterprise, and in the courtroom in New York on Monday he entered a plea of not guilty.

International Legal and Action Concerns

Although the indictments are focused on drugs, the US prosecution of Maduro follows years of censure of his governance of Venezuela from the wider international community.

In 2020, UN inquiry officials said Maduro's government had carried out "egregious violations" that were crimes against humanity - and that the president and other high-ranking members were involved. The US and some of its partners have also accused Maduro of manipulating votes, and refused to acknowledge him as the legitimate president.

Maduro's purported links to narco-trafficking organizations are the focus of this indictment, 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 whisking Maduro out of the country in a clandestine nighttime raid was "completely illegal under international law," said a professor at a institution.

Scholars highlighted a series of concerns presented by the US operation.

The founding UN document prohibits members from armed aggression against other countries. It authorizes "military response to an actual assault" but that risk must be immediate, analysts said. The other provision occurs when the UN Security Council authorizes such an action, which the US lacked before it proceeded in Venezuela.

Global jurisprudence would consider the drug-trafficking offences the US alleges against Maduro to be a law enforcement matter, authorities contend, not a armed aggression that might warrant one country to take covert force against another.

In public statements, the government has described the mission as, in the words of the Secretary of State, "basically a law enforcement function", rather than an hostile military campaign.

Precedent and US Jurisdictional Questions

Maduro has been under indictment on illicit narcotics allegations in the US since 2020; the federal prosecutors has now issued a revised - or amended - formal accusation against the Venezuelan leader. The administration argues it is now executing it.

"The action was carried out to aid an ongoing criminal prosecution linked to massive illicit drug trade and related offenses that have incited bloodshed, upended the area, and been a direct cause of the drug crisis killing US citizens," the Attorney General said in her statement.

But since the apprehension, several jurists have said the US disregarded international law by extracting Maduro out of Venezuela unilaterally.

"A country cannot go into another sovereign nation and apprehend citizens," said an authority in international criminal law. "If the US wants to arrest someone in another country, the correct procedure to do that is a legal process."

Regardless of whether an person faces indictment in America, "The US has no right to travel globally executing an arrest warrant in the territory of other ," she said.

Maduro's legal team in court on Monday said they would challenge the legality of the US mission which brought him from Caracas to New York.

There's also a persistent legal debate about whether commanders-in-chief must follow the UN Charter. The US Constitution considers accords the country signs to be the "binding legal authority".

But there's a well-known case of a previous government contending it did not have to follow the charter.

In 1989, the Bush White House removed Panama's de facto ruler Manuel Noriega and brought him to the US to face narco-trafficking indictments.

An confidential Justice Department memo from the time argued that the president had the constitutional power to order the FBI to arrest individuals who flouted US law, "even if those actions contravene established global norms" - including the UN Charter.

The draftsman of that document, William Barr, became the US AG and issued the original 2020 accusation against Maduro.

However, the document's reasoning later came under questioning from jurists. US the judiciary have not directly ruled on the matter.

US Executive Authority and Jurisdiction

In the US, the question of whether this mission broke any US statutes is multifaceted.

The US Constitution grants Congress the authority to authorize military force, but places the president in charge of the military.

A Nixon-era law called the War Powers Resolution places limits on the president's power to use the military. It mandates the president to inform Congress before deploying US troops overseas "to the greatest extent practicable," and report to Congress within 48 hours of committing troops.

The administration did not provide Congress a prior warning before the mission in Venezuela "due to operational security concerns," a cabinet member said.

However, several {presidents|commanders