🔗 Share this article

This past Monday, a handcuffed, jumpsuit-clad Nicholas Maduro exited a armed forces helicopter in Manhattan, surrounded by heavily armed officers.

The Caracas chief had spent the night in a notorious federal jail in Brooklyn, prior to authorities transported him to a Manhattan courthouse to answer to legal accusations.

The top prosecutor has said Maduro was brought to the US to "stand trial".

But jurisprudence authorities doubt the lawfulness of the administration's maneuver, and maintain the US may have violated international statutes concerning the use of force. Under American law, however, the US's actions enter a unclear legal territory that may nonetheless lead to Maduro standing trial, irrespective of the methods that brought him there.

The US insists its actions were permissible under statute. The executive branch has charged Maduro of "narco-terrorism" and facilitating the movement of "massive quantities" of cocaine to the US.

"All personnel involved operated by the book, with resolve, and in complete adherence to US law and established protocols," the Attorney General said in a official communication.

Maduro has repeatedly refuted US claims that he runs an narco-trafficking scheme, and in the courtroom in New York on Monday he pled of not guilty.

International Legal and Action Questions

Although the accusations are related to drugs, the US pursuit of Maduro is the culmination of years of condemnation of his governance of Venezuela from the United Nations and allies.

In 2020, UN inquiry officials said Maduro's government had perpetrated "grave abuses" that were international crimes - and that the president and other top officials were connected. The US and some of its partners have also charged Maduro of rigging elections, and did not recognise him as the legitimate president.

Maduro's claimed ties with drugs cartels are the crux of this prosecution, yet the US procedures in putting him before a US judge to face these counts are also being examined.

Conducting a military operation in Venezuela and taking Maduro out of the country under the cover of darkness was "entirely unlawful under international law," said a legal scholar at a university.

Scholars pointed to a host of issues raised by the US operation.

The United Nations Charter prohibits members from threatening or using force against other countries. It allows for "military response to an actual assault" but that risk must be immediate, analysts said. The other provision occurs when the UN Security Council sanctions such an operation, which the US failed to secure before it acted in Venezuela.

Global jurisprudence would view the drug-trafficking offences the US claims against Maduro to be a police concern, authorities contend, not a violent attack that might justify one country to take covert force against another.

In comments to the press, the government has characterised the mission as, in the words of the Secretary of State, "basically a law enforcement function", rather than an act of war.

Precedent 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 revised - or revised - indictment against the South American president. The executive branch argues it is now enforcing it.

"The operation was carried out to aid an pending indictment tied to widespread drug smuggling and associated crimes that have fuelled violence, upended the area, and been a direct cause of the opioid epidemic causing fatalities in the US," the AG said in her statement.

But since the operation, several legal experts have said the US broke global norms by removing Maduro out of Venezuela on its own.

"A country cannot enter another foreign country and arrest people," said an professor of international criminal law. "In the event that the US wants to arrest someone in another country, the correct procedure to do that is a formal request."

Regardless of whether an individual faces indictment in America, "America has no authority to operate internationally executing an legal summons in the jurisdiction of other ," she said.

Maduro's legal team in the Manhattan courtroom on Monday said they would dispute the propriety of the US mission which brought him from Caracas to New York.

There's also a persistent jurisprudential discussion about whether commanders-in-chief must comply with the UN Charter. The US Constitution views treaties the country enters to be the "supreme law of the land".

But there's a clear historic example of a former executive contending it did not have to comply with the charter.

In 1989, the George HW Bush administration ousted Panama's de facto ruler Manuel Noriega and extradited him to the US to answer illicit narcotics accusations.

An internal DOJ document from the time contended that the president had the executive right to order the FBI to arrest individuals who broke US law, "even if those actions contravene traditional state practice" - including the UN Charter.

The author of that opinion, William Barr, later served as the US attorney general and issued the original 2020 accusation against Maduro.

However, the memo's rationale later came under scrutiny from jurists. US federal judges have not explicitly weighed in on the issue.

US Executive Authority and Jurisdiction

In the US, the matter of whether this mission transgressed any US statutes 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 imposes constraints on the president's authority to use military force. It compels the president to consult Congress before deploying US troops abroad "in every possible instance," and inform Congress within 48 hours of committing troops.

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

However, several {presidents|commanders