🔗 Share this article

On Monday morning, a shackled, prison-uniform-wearing Nicholas Maduro disembarked from a armed forces helicopter in New York City, accompanied by heavily armed officers.

The Venezuelan president had remained in a well-known federal facility in Brooklyn, before authorities transferred him to a Manhattan courthouse to face indictments.

The top prosecutor has stated Maduro was taken to the US to "stand trial".

But international law experts doubt the legality of the government's operation, and argue the US may have infringed upon global treaties governing the armed incursion. Under American law, however, the US's actions occupy a juridical ambiguity that may nevertheless culminate in Maduro standing trial, despite the circumstances that delivered him.

The US asserts its actions were lawful. The administration has accused Maduro of "narco-trafficking terrorism" and abetting the movement of "vast amounts" of illicit drugs to the US.

"All personnel involved conducted themselves with utmost professionalism, firmly, and in strict accordance with US law and established protocols," the top legal official said in a statement.

Maduro has consistently rejected US accusations that he oversees an illegal drug operation, and in court in New York on Monday he stated his plea of innocent.

Global Law and Action Concerns

Although the indictments are focused on drugs, the US pursuit of Maduro comes after years of condemnation of his governance of Venezuela from the wider international community.

In 2020, UN investigators said Maduro's government had perpetrated "serious breaches" constituting crimes against humanity - and that the president and other high-ranking members were connected. The US and some of its partners have also alleged Maduro of manipulating votes, and did not recognise him as the legitimate president.

Maduro's purported connections to drugs cartels are the crux of this indictment, yet the US methods in putting him before a US judge to respond to these allegations are also facing review.

Conducting a covert action in Venezuela and taking Maduro out of the country under the cover of darkness was "completely illegal under the UN Charter," said a expert at a law school.

Experts pointed to a number of concerns raised by the US operation.

The United Nations Charter prohibits members from the threat or use of force against other countries. It allows for "self-defense against an imminent armed attack" but that risk must be looming, experts said. The other allowance occurs when the UN Security Council approves such an operation, which the US did not obtain before it proceeded in Venezuela.

Treaty law would regard the drug-trafficking offences the US accuses against Maduro to be a criminal justice issue, analysts argue, not a act of war that might warrant one country to take military action against another.

In comments to the press, the government has framed 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 Jurisdictional Questions

Maduro has been indicted on drug trafficking charges in the US since 2020; the federal prosecutors has now issued a revised - or new - formal accusation against the South American president. The administration argues it is now carrying it out.

"The operation was conducted to aid an ongoing criminal prosecution linked to large-scale narcotics trafficking and related offenses that have incited bloodshed, upended the area, and contributed directly to the narcotics problem killing US citizens," the AG said in her statement.

But since the mission, several scholars have said the US disregarded global norms by extracting Maduro out of Venezuela unilaterally.

"A sovereign state cannot invade another independent state and detain individuals," said an professor of global jurisprudence. "If the US wants to arrest someone in another country, the proper way to do that is a formal request."

Even if an defendant is accused in America, "America has no right to operate internationally executing an arrest warrant in the territory of other sovereign states," she said.

Maduro's attorneys in the Manhattan courtroom on Monday said they would contest the legality of the US mission which brought him from Caracas to New York.

There's also a long-running legal debate about whether heads of state must adhere to the UN Charter. The US Constitution considers international agreements the country signs to be the "binding legal authority".

But there's a clear historic example of a presidential administration claiming it did not have to comply with the charter.

In 1989, the US government removed Panama's de facto ruler Manuel Noriega and extradited him to the US to answer narco-trafficking indictments.

An internal legal opinion from the time stated that the president had the legal authority to order the FBI to arrest individuals who flouted US law, "even if those actions breach traditional state practice" - including the UN Charter.

The draftsman of that memo, William Barr, became the US attorney general and issued the initial 2020 charges against Maduro.

However, the document's reasoning later came under scrutiny from academics. US courts have not made a definitive judgment on the matter.

Domestic Executive Authority and Jurisdiction

In the US, the matter of whether this action violated any federal regulations is complex.

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

A Nixon-era law called the War Powers Resolution establishes constraints on the president's ability to use the military. It requires the president to notify Congress before deploying US troops abroad "in every possible instance," and inform Congress within 48 hours of initiating an operation.

The administration withheld Congress a heads up before the action in Venezuela "because it endangers the mission," a cabinet member said.

However, several {presidents|commanders