🔗 Share this article

This past Monday, a shackled, jumpsuit-clad Nicholas Maduro stepped off a military helicopter in Manhattan, accompanied by federal marshals.

The Caracas chief had remained in a infamous federal detention center in Brooklyn, before authorities moved him to a Manhattan court to confront legal accusations.

The top prosecutor has stated Maduro was delivered to the US to "face justice".

But international law experts doubt the lawfulness of the administration's operation, and argue the US may have breached international statutes governing the military intervention. Under American law, however, the US's actions enter a juridical ambiguity that may still result in Maduro standing trial, regardless of the methods that delivered him.

The US insists its actions were lawful. The government has accused Maduro of "drug-funded terrorism" and abetting the shipment of "vast amounts" of illicit drugs to the US.

"Every officer participating acted by the book, decisively, and in full compliance with US law and standard procedures," the Attorney General said in a release.

Maduro has repeatedly refuted US allegations that he manages an illegal drug operation, and in the courtroom in New York on Monday he entered a plea of not guilty.

International Legal and Action Concerns

Although the charges are centered on drugs, the US pursuit of Maduro follows years of censure of his leadership of Venezuela from the United Nations and allies.

In 2020, UN fact-finders said Maduro's government had committed "grave abuses" that were international crimes - and that the president and other top officials were implicated. The US and some of its allies have also charged Maduro of electoral fraud, and did not recognise him as the rightful leader.

Maduro's alleged ties with criminal syndicates are the crux of this indictment, yet the US methods in placing him in front of a US judge to face these counts are also facing review.

Conducting a military operation in Venezuela and whisking Maduro out of the country in a clandestine nighttime raid was "completely illegal under global statutes," said a expert at a law school.

Experts cited a number of issues stemming from the US mission.

The United Nations Charter forbids members from armed aggression against other states. It allows for "self-defense against an imminent armed attack" but that threat must be immediate, analysts said. The other provision occurs when the UN Security Council sanctions such an intervention, which the US did not obtain before it acted in Venezuela.

Treaty law would view the illicit narcotics allegations the US accuses against Maduro to be a criminal justice issue, experts say, not a armed aggression that might justify one country to take military action against another.

In official remarks, the administration has characterised the mission as, in the words of the top diplomat, "primarily a police action", rather than an declaration of war.

Historical Parallels and US Legal Debate

Maduro has been formally charged on drug trafficking charges in the US since 2020; the justice department has now issued a superseding - or new - indictment against the Venezuelan leader. The executive branch essentially says it is now carrying it out.

"The mission was executed to support an ongoing criminal prosecution related to large-scale narcotics trafficking and associated crimes that have fuelled violence, created regional instability, and contributed directly to the opioid epidemic killing US citizens," the AG said in her statement.

But since the operation, several jurists have said the US disregarded international law by removing Maduro out of Venezuela without consent.

"A sovereign state cannot invade another sovereign nation and detain individuals," said an professor of global jurisprudence. "In the event that the US wants to apprehend someone in another country, the established method to do that is a formal request."

Even if an defendant is charged in America, "The United States has no authority to travel globally enforcing an arrest warrant in the jurisdiction of other sovereign states," she said.

Maduro's lawyers in court on Monday said they would dispute the lawfulness of the US action which took him from Caracas to New York.

There's also a ongoing legal debate about whether commanders-in-chief must follow the UN Charter. The US Constitution regards treaties the country ratifies to be the "supreme law of the land".

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

In 1989, the George HW Bush administration removed Panama's de facto ruler Manuel Noriega and extradited him to the US to answer drug trafficking charges.

An confidential DOJ document from the time stated that the president had the legal authority to order the FBI to apprehend individuals who violated US law, "even if those actions violate established global norms" - including the UN Charter.

The draftsman of that memo, William Barr, became the US attorney general and filed the original 2020 indictment against Maduro.

However, the memo's reasoning later came under scrutiny from legal scholars. US courts have not explicitly weighed in on the matter.

US Executive Authority and Jurisdiction

In the US, the matter of whether this operation transgressed any federal regulations is multifaceted.

The US Constitution grants Congress the authority to commence hostilities, but puts the president in charge of the military.

A 1970s statute called the War Powers Resolution places constraints on the president's power to use military force. It compels the president to inform Congress before deploying US troops overseas "whenever possible," and notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces.

The administration did not provide Congress a advance notice before the mission in Venezuela "due to operational security concerns," a top official said.

However, several {presidents|commanders