George Anjay
On Monday morning, a handcuffed, jumpsuit-clad Nicolás Maduro stepped off a military helicopter in New York City, flanked by armed federal agents. The Venezuelan president had spent the night in a notorious federal jail in Brooklyn before authorities transported him to a Manhattan courthouse to face criminal charges. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared that Maduro was brought to the US to "face justice." However, international law experts are questioning the legality of the Trump administration’s actions, arguing the US may have violated international statutes governing the use of force. Domestically, the US’s actions fall into a legal grey area that could still result in Maduro standing trial, irrespective of the circumstances that led to his apprehension.
The US maintains its actions were legally justified, with the Trump administration accusing Maduro of "narco-terrorism" and facilitating the transport of "thousands of tonnes" of cocaine to the US. "All personnel involved acted professionally, decisively, and in strict accordance with US law and established protocols," Bondi stated. Maduro has consistently denied US allegations that he oversees an illegal drug operation, and in court in New York on Monday, he entered a plea of not guilty.
Although the charges are primarily focused on drug trafficking, the US prosecution of Maduro follows years of international criticism regarding his leadership of Venezuela. In 2020, UN investigators reported that Maduro’s government had committed "egregious violations" amounting to crimes against humanity, implicating the president and other top officials. The US and some of its allies have also accused Maduro of rigging elections and have not recognized him as the legitimate president.
The alleged links between Maduro and drug cartels are the central focus of this legal case, yet the methods employed by the US in bringing him before an American judge to answer these charges are also under intense scrutiny. Conducting a military operation within Venezuela and extracting Maduro from the country under the cover of darkness was "completely illegal under international law," according to Luke Moffett, a professor at the Queen’s University Belfast School of Law. Professor Moffett, along with other experts, highlighted a series of issues raised by the US operation.
The United Nations Charter unequivocally prohibits member states from threatening or using force against other states. It permits "self-defence if an armed attack occurs," but this threat must be imminent, as Professor Moffett explained. The only other exception is when the UN Security Council authorizes such action, which the US failed to obtain before intervening in Venezuela. International law experts contend that the drug-trafficking offenses alleged against Maduro by the US should be considered a law enforcement matter, not an act of violence that would justify one country taking military action against another.
In public statements, the Trump administration has characterized the operation as, in the words of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, "basically a law enforcement function," rather than an act of war or a military campaign. Maduro had been under indictment on drug trafficking charges in the US since 2020, and the Justice Department has now issued a superseding indictment against the Venezuelan leader. The Trump administration essentially asserts it is now enforcing this existing indictment. "The mission was conducted to support an ongoing criminal prosecution tied to large-scale narcotics trafficking and related offenses that have fueled violence, destabilized the region, and contributed directly to the drug crisis claiming American lives," Bondi stated.
However, in the aftermath of the operation, several legal experts have voiced concerns that the US contravened international law by unilaterally abducting Maduro from Venezuela. "A country cannot go into another foreign country and arrest people," stated Milena Sterio, an expert on international criminal law at Cleveland State University College of Law. "If the US wants to arrest someone in another country, the proper way to do that is extradition." Even if an individual faces indictment in America, "The US has no right to go around the world enforcing the arrest warrant in the territory of other sovereign states," she added. Maduro’s legal team, in court in Manhattan on Monday, indicated their intention to challenge the legality of the US operation that transported him from Caracas to New York.
There is also a long-standing legal debate regarding whether presidents are obligated to adhere to the UN Charter. The US Constitution considers treaties that the country enters into to be the "supreme law of the land." However, a significant historical precedent exists where a presidential administration argued it was not bound by the charter. In 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration forcibly removed Panama’s military leader, Manuel Noriega, and brought him to the US to face drug trafficking charges. An internal Justice Department memo from that period argued that the president possessed the legal authority to order the FBI to arrest individuals who violated US law, "even if those actions contravene customary international law," including the UN Charter.
The author of that memo, William Barr, later served as the US Attorney General during Trump’s first term and initiated the initial 2020 indictment against Maduro. Nevertheless, the memo’s rationale subsequently faced criticism from legal scholars, and US courts have not yet explicitly ruled on the matter. Within the US, the question of whether this operation violated domestic laws is complex. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war but places the president as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. A Nixon-era law, the War Powers Resolution, imposes restrictions on the president’s ability to deploy military force. It mandates that the president consult Congress before committing US troops abroad "in every possible instance" and notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces.
The Trump administration did not provide advance notification to Congress before the action in Venezuela, with Rubio stating on Saturday that doing so "endangers the mission." Nevertheless, several presidents have tested the boundaries of their authority to order military actions without congressional approval, and Trump has been conducting military strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean for months, despite bipartisan criticism. US federal courts now possess jurisdiction over Maduro, regardless of the manner of his arrival. Maduro could contend that the US violated international law by forcibly bringing him to New York. However, extensive legal precedent suggests that a trial against Maduro would proceed, according to Professor Sterio. "Our courts have long recognized that for a defendant, even if they are kidnapped or abducted or forcibly brought to the US, that is not grounds for tossing out the case," she concluded.
Nana Banana
atisusanti
