Controversial President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro he was captured as part of a US military operation and transferred to New York, where he is to face a number of trafficking-related charges drugs and conspiracies related to the possession of weapons.
The manner in which the regime change was carried out provoked strong condemnations, including from those from Kine. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the US of "hegemonic action" against Venezuela and called the arrest of Maduro and his wife a "clear violation of international law". writes DW.
Observers welcomed and condemned the operation at the same time.
Although many experts in foreign policy and international law considered it a good move to remove Maduro, who after the 2024 elections that independent observers were led to lose, is widely considered an illegitimate leader, as well as a person with an extensive record of persecuting political opponents — serious doubts remain about the legality of the US actions.
Long preparations for regime change
World Trump back in 2020, the administration labeled Maduro a "narco-terrorist" and accused him of leading a group of Venezuelan officials who got rich from drug trafficking.
During his second term, seemingly friendlier bilateral relations — in which the Maduro regime helped repatriate Venezuelans, in line with Trump's tough stance on immigration — quickly turned into conflict. SAD were then focused on alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean. Trump also declared the drug fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.
However, there was little evidence to support those claims.
Some have suggested that the Caribbean campaign and US naval action were designed to press for control of Venezuela's oil reserves, and Trump's statements following Maduro's arrest support those assumptions.
Trump's move likely violates international law
The United States was a leader in the establishment of the United Nations and in 1945 signed the fundamental document of that organization — the UN Charter — which represents the basis of numerous principles of international law, including the territorial integrity of states.
In this context, experts pointed to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, suggesting that the actions of the US violated international law. That article prohibits the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence" of another state.
"This was the use of force," said Marko Milanovic, director of the Global Law program at Ridgering University in the UK.
"If you send 150 planes to another country, if you start bombing its air defenses, if you kidnap its president and if you kill dozens of people — that is the use of force within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 4."
There are, of course, exceptions, and the most important one is approval UN Security Council for taking military action against another country. However, no such approval was sought prior to Maduro's arrest.
Another exception is the right to self-defense, but given the vast military superiority of the US over Venezuela, it is not clear how that argument could be considered valid.
Even declaring fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction, labeling Maduro a narco-terrorist, and accusing him of a conspiracy against the US would probably not be accepted as justification for self-defense by any international standard.
"Self-defense requires an armed attack," Milanović told DW. "Merely allowing the export of drugs from one country to another is not an armed attack and has never been treated as an armed attack."
Maduro's arrest likely "circumvented" US laws
The use of the US military to attack a foreign country, as Susie Wiles admitted in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, would also require the approval of the US Congress.
Such approval, however, was not secured, nor was it even sought.
At Donald Trump's press conference, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the operation as apparently law enforcement rather than a declaration of war, saying, "At its core, this was the arrest of two accused fugitives from American justice, and the Department of Defense supported the Department of Justice in that process."
Jeremy Paul, a constitutional law expert at Northwestern University in the US, said Rubio's argument was "plausible" but that the president's subsequent statements about US plans to "manage" Venezuela and its oil fields "completely undermined" that logic.
"We arrested him, he is now in custody and will be tried in New York. That should be the end of it, right? There shouldn't be any further reason for anything to happen in the future," Paul told DW, adding:
"Everything that President Trump has said about the oil fields, about managing the country, about working with various Venezuelan officials — all of that completely undermines the rationale that Secretary of State Rubio has put forward. It's completely inconsistent."
Like other legal and political observers who have commented on the situation following Maduro's transfer to the US, Paul emphasized the illegitimacy of the former Venezuelan president, but expressed concern about the manner in which his arrest was carried out.
"The current administration's failure to follow domestic laws, consult with Congress, as well as international law, is troubling and I hope that sanity will eventually prevail," Paul said.
A precedent that was 36 years in the making
Maduro's arrest came exactly 36 years after the US, under President George HW Bush, ousted Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and transferred him to Florida, where he faced charges of racketeering, drug trafficking and money laundering.
That historical event is often cited as a parallel to the current situation in Venezuela, which occurred after disputed elections. And Bush's operation was condemned for violating international law and lacking congressional approval.
A key US law is likely to once again allow a foreign leader to be tried on US soil. Namely, the so-called "Kerr-Frisby doctrine" represents a long-standing, albeit controversial, legal principle that allows the accused to be prosecuted within the American justice system, regardless of the way he was arrested.
"In the end, Maduro will have lawyers, that's indisputable, and they will be with him throughout the process," Paul said. "And if he is convicted, that legal issue will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court."
Big holiday discount on "Vreme" - subscriptions 25 percent cheaper until mid-January. Give it away subscription to yourself or to someone else, read what matters.
