🔗 Share this article

On Monday morning, a handcuffed, prison-uniform-wearing Nicolás Maduro exited a armed forces helicopter in New York City, surrounded by armed federal agents.

The leader of Venezuela had been held overnight in a well-known federal jail in Brooklyn, before authorities moved him to a Manhattan court to confront indictments.

The top prosecutor has said Maduro was brought to the US to "face justice".

But legal scholars challenge the propriety of the government's operation, and argue the US may have violated international statutes governing the use of force. Under American law, however, the US's actions fall into a unclear legal territory that may nonetheless lead to Maduro standing trial, regardless of the methods that delivered him.

The US insists its actions were permissible under statute. The administration has accused Maduro of "drug-funded terrorism" and facilitating the transport of "vast amounts" of cocaine to the US.

"The entire team conducted themselves professionally, firmly, and in full compliance with US law and established protocols," the top legal official said in a release.

Maduro has consistently rejected US allegations that he runs an narco-trafficking scheme, and in the courtroom in New York on Monday he stated his plea of not guilty.

International Law and Action Concerns

While the charges are related to drugs, the US pursuit of Maduro follows years of condemnation of his leadership of Venezuela from the United Nations and allies.

In 2020, UN inquiry officials said Maduro's government had carried out "egregious violations" amounting to international crimes - and that the president and other top officials were involved. The US and some of its allies have also accused Maduro of electoral fraud, and withheld recognition of him as the legal head of state.

Maduro's claimed connections to drugs cartels are the crux of this indictment, yet the US procedures in placing him in front of a US judge to face these counts are also facing review.

Conducting a covert action in Venezuela and taking Maduro out of the country under the cover of darkness was "a clear violation under international law," said a legal scholar at a law school.

Legal authorities pointed to a series of concerns stemming from the US mission.

The United Nations Charter bans members from threatening or using force against other countries. It allows for "military response to an actual assault" but that danger must be looming, professors said. The other provision occurs when the UN Security Council approves such an intervention, which the US lacked before it acted in Venezuela.

Global jurisprudence would regard the narco-trafficking charges the US accuses against Maduro to be a law enforcement matter, analysts argue, not a act of war that might justify one country to take armed action against another.

In public statements, the government has framed the operation as, in the words of the foreign affairs chief, "primarily a police action", rather than an declaration of war.

Historical Parallels and Domestic Jurisdictional Questions

Maduro has been under indictment on narco-terrorism counts in the US since 2020; the Department of Justice has now issued a superseding - or new - formal accusation against the Venezuelan leader. The administration argues it is now executing it.

"The operation was executed to facilitate an pending indictment related to large-scale drug smuggling and associated crimes that have spurred conflict, destabilised the region, and contributed directly to the opioid epidemic causing fatalities in the US," the AG said in her statement.

But since the apprehension, several scholars have said the US violated international law by removing Maduro out of Venezuela unilaterally.

"One nation cannot go into another foreign country and apprehend citizens," said an expert on international criminal law. "If the US wants to detain someone in another country, the established method to do that is a formal request."

Regardless of whether an defendant faces indictment in America, "The United States has no legal standing to travel globally enforcing an arrest warrant in the jurisdiction of other ," she said.

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

There's also a ongoing jurisprudential discussion about whether commanders-in-chief must follow the UN Charter. The US Constitution regards treaties the country enters to be the "highest law in the nation".

But there's a well-known case of a former executive claiming it did not have to follow the charter.

In 1989, the Bush White House ousted Panama's military leader Manuel Noriega and took him to the US to face illicit narcotics accusations.

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

The draftsman of that opinion, William Barr, was appointed the US top prosecutor and filed the first 2020 accusation against Maduro.

However, the document's rationale later came under questioning from academics. US federal judges have not explicitly weighed in on the question.

US Executive Authority and Jurisdiction

In the US, the issue of whether this operation violated any federal regulations is complicated.

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

A War Powers Resolution called the War Powers Resolution establishes constraints on the president's power to use armed force. It requires the president to consult Congress before committing US troops overseas "whenever possible," and report to Congress within 48 hours of committing troops.

The administration withheld Congress a advance notice before the action in Venezuela "because it endangers the mission," a senior figure said.

However, several {presidents|commanders