WASHINGTON, D.C. – As global protests over the United States’ abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro continue to grow, authorities in Washington are relying on the United States’ own criminal charges to justify military operations.
But experts stress that countries cannot use their indictments to attack others and refuse to consider Maduro’s “detention” a legitimate arrest.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Margaret Satterthwaite, UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said: “Internationally, there are very clear limits on enforcement jurisdiction, and one state cannot enforce its laws on the territory of another state unless that state consents.”
“So, for example, if a state takes into custody someone the United States deems a fugitive, the United States can approach that state and ask for its consent to arrest them and bring them back to the United States to stand trial. But even if they are properly prosecuted by the U.S. court system, they cannot enter another country and capture the individual without that state’s consent.”
Maduro was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2020 on drug and gun charges. On Monday, he made his first court appearance in New York since the kidnapping and maintained his innocence, saying he was “kidnapped.”
Another international law issue raised by President Maduro’s abduction is the immunity of heads of state and other officials from prosecution and civil penalties abroad. This principle has been confirmed by the International Court of Justice and previously recognized by Washington.
“So the United States is not only extending its enforcement jurisdiction without Venezuela’s consent, but it is also seizing a state official and saying we have the right to simply remove this person from his position and put him on trial in the United States,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera.
International courts are an exception to immunity for heads of state. In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on suspicion of war crimes in Gaza.
The United States has imposed sanctions on ICC officials for investigating Israel.
US position
But the legal agreement has not stopped US President Donald Trump’s aides and allies from insisting that Maduro’s abduction was merely a law enforcement operation and not an act of aggression against another country.
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton likened the kidnapping by U.S. special forces in Caracas to law enforcement officers arresting suspected drug traffickers in the United States, and argued that the White House did not need to inform Congress of the attack.
“It’s not the kind of thing where you would expect advance notice to Congress,” Cotton said on Monday’s Hugh Hewitt Show.
“Furthermore, executives do not expect advance notice every time they carry out an arrest of a drug trafficker, whether in Venezuela or in Arkansas.”
Hours after Saturday’s operation, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance also invoked the indictment of Maduro as legal basis for the U.S. attack.
“And to all of you who say this is ‘illegal,’ here’s a PSA: President Maduro has been indicted multiple times in the US for narco-terrorism charges,” Vance wrote to X.
“Just because you live in a palace in Caracas, you can’t escape trial for drug trafficking in the United States.”
Republican Sen. Mike Lee initially questioned the domestic legality of taking military action without Congressional approval on Saturday.
But he later said he had been told by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the violence was “deployed to protect and protect those executing the arrest warrant,” an explanation that seemed to satisfy the senators’ concerns.
But Yusra Suedi, assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, said the attack on Venezuela violated the United Nations Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.
“A state cannot legally justify a violation of international law by citing its domestic law, and this is a fundamental principle of international law,” Suedi said.
Ian Hurd, a political science professor at Northwestern University, rejected the idea that the U.S. military was conducting a law enforcement operation.
“It would be foolish for the U.S. government to claim that this is just an execution of an arrest warrant,” Hurd told Al Jazeera.
“Then you have to imagine that the Canadian government might issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Trump on charges of fraud and sexual harassment, send troops to bomb the White House, detain Mr. Trump, and bring him back to Canada for trial.”
He added that international law clearly states that governments cannot use force against other countries to achieve their own goals.
“Therefore, this is clearly illegal under international law. It is nothing more than the overthrow of a government through the use of force by a neighboring country,” Hurd told Al Jazeera.
question of legitimacy
Following Maduro’s abduction, some supporters of the move have argued that he lacks legitimacy due to allegations of voter fraud in the last election, which the opposition claims are documented.
Even before the U.S. raid, opposition leader María Colina Machado said removing Maduro would not amount to regime change because Venezuelans had already voted against the president.
But experts say the U.S. government’s assessment of Maduro’s legitimacy has nothing to do with the illegality of the attack.
He was Venezuela’s head of state at the time of his abduction, a fact acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Justice in a 2026 indictment, which called Maduro “the president and current de facto ruler of Venezuela.”
UN rapporteur Satterthwaite said that while there were “grave concerns” about the 2024 election, the US itself had been treating Maduro as Venezuela’s leader.
In January, President Trump sent a special envoy, Richard Grenell, to meet with President Maduro to discuss accepting deportation flights of Venezuelans who entered the United States illegally.
“If you allow one government to fly around the world saying, ‘This person is legitimate, this is not legitimate, and he’s not legitimate, I’m going to go get him,’ you can see the chaos that ensues,” Satterthwaite said.
He added that the legitimacy of many governments around the world could be called into question over electoral fraud, lack of elections, and the seizure of power through coups d’état. “That does not allow another individual government to unilaterally decide that they can go and get the head of that government,” she said.
Maduro’s government has been accused of serious human rights violations, including arbitrary arrest and torture of dissidents.
“Of course I support holding the[Venezuela]government accountable, but I don’t support the kind of Wild West recklessness that’s unfolding here,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera.
noriega incident
Some advocates of Maduro’s abduction over U.S. charges argue there is precedent for the move.
“President Trump’s arrest of President Nicolás Maduro is unprecedented, and critics who say it is illegal have little memory. We’ve done this before, and the courts have blessed it,” the University of Georgia and State University business law associate professor wrote in a Wall Street Journal column.
He was referring to the 1989-1990 U.S. invasion of Panama and its occupation under President Manuel Noriega. Noriega was tried and convicted on drug charges in the United States.
Mr Satterthwaite said Mr Noriega’s detention had its own legal issues under international law and was not completely analogous to Mr Maduro’s abduction.
“This was also illegal, so the comparison is completely useless,” she told Al Jazeera.
The United Nations General Assembly condemned the US invasion of Panama.
Satterthwaite said that in the case of Panama, Washington tried to assert jurisdiction by arguing that Noriega was not the country’s leader and that the United States was acting with the consent of the proper head of state at the time, President-elect Guillermo Endara.
“It’s important to note that at that time in Panama, Congress had actually declared war on the United States, and there was already hostility between the two countries,” Satterthwaite said.
“All of these things make this different, but I don’t think they make the surgery legal in the first place.”
