Venezuela II: Answering Your Top International Law Questions After the Maduro Capture (in 3 minutes)
By Yusra Suedi (PhD, Assistant Professor of International Law at University of Manchester)
Hello, old and new subscribers! Thanks for the love on my last explainer on Venezuela!
I got quite a few follow up questions, so here’s another simple breakdown.
I. RESPONDING TO U.S. LAW ARGUMENTS
“But the Monroe Doctrine says it’s okay to control Venezuela.”
Nope.
It was a 19th-century U.S. policy telling European countries not to mess with countries in the Americas.
It later got stretched into the idea that Latin America is the U.S.’s backyard.
But it’s not law.
Plus, modern international law is all about letting each country make its own choices and not using force to run someone else’s country.
“But U.S. law says it’s okay to capture Maduro.”
Yes, a U.S. court started a criminal case accusing Maduro of sending drugs into the U.S. It said if he’s brought to the U.S., the trial can go forward.
Yes, the 1989 Barr Memo says the U.S. President can order the FBI to make arrests in other countries, even if it breaks international law.
And yes, the US Department of Justice says the President can use the military to protect federal agencies and workers while they’re doing their jobs.
So yes, it might be considered legal under U.S. law.
But that doesn’t make it legal under international law.
A very clear rule under international law is that a country can’t say “our domestic law lets us do this” as a defense for breaking international law (Article 27).
The U.S. still has international responsibility for its actions.
“But the U.S. did this to Noriega (Panama) in 1989!”
Sure, the U.S. invaded Panama and brought Manuel Noriega to trial.
But that was illegal under international law too, for the same reasons as Venezuela.
Just because it happened before, doesn’t make it legal the second time.
“But there’s a fair legal process going on in New York.”
Yes, under U.S. law, someone can be prosecuted even if they were brought to the U.S. unlawfully (!).
But that doesn’t erase the international law violations (see above).
“Who cares about international law; the U.S. is the most powerful country?”
That doesn’t give the U.S. a free pass under international law.
No one is above the law.
Thinking that way has led to some of the worst atrocities in history and made the world worse off. Do better.
II. THE TRIAL AND DETENTION IN NEW YORK
Delcy Rodríguez has taken over, so what about Maduro’s immunity under international law?
If Venezuela still says Maduro is President, then he can claim presidential immunity under international law.
If not, immunity disappears.
Former Presidents have limited immunity only for things their job required them to do.
But drug trafficking or corruption aren’t part of the job, so immunity won’t protect him anyway.
Will the New York court recognise his immunity under international law?
No. It will only apply U.S. law.
So will the court recognise his immunity under U.S. law?
No.
Under U.S. law, a sitting head of state is generally protected from prosecution, but only if the U.S. actually recognizes them as that leader.
The U.S. does not recognise Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president.
So the court is likely to reject an immunity claim and let the trial go ahead.
III. THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Can the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecute Trump for war crimes?
Yes.
(Not for the crime of aggression, as covered in my last post).
Under international law, a war exists as soon as one country attacks another, even if no war is formally declared and even if the U.S. says “this isn’t a war.”
Possible war crimes: Unlawful detention, taking hostages, forcibly moving or deporting civilians.
(That said, this would be extremely risky! Trump has already sanctioned ICC judges and under U.S. law, he can invade The Hague if the ICC does this. (Not a joke.))
Can the ICC try Maduro for crimes?
Yes.
It’s been investigating crimes committed in Venezuela under the Maduro regime since 2018.
It could have issued an arrest warrant for Maduro, obligating ICC States Parties to arrest and surrender him to The Hague in accordance with international law.
What can the International Court of Justice (ICJ) do here?
Nothing.
The ICJ settles disputes between countries, but it can only act if both sides agree. The U.S. and Venezuela haven’t agreed.
What about the UN Security Council or CELAC?
Not much.
It can hold meetings and let countries make speeches, like it did on Monday, 5 January.
But the U.S. is a permanent member with veto power, blocking any formal condemnation or action.
CELAC doesn’t share a common position — some countries (like Cuba) condemn Trump’s move, while others (like Argentina) don’t.
IV. WHAT’S NEXT?
Possibly attacked Greenland, Cuba, Colombia…
Controlling Venezuelan oil exports…
Let me know which of these you want explained next!
Maduro is not a drug trafficker, that is absurd. He is a legitimate president. Chávez himself warned before he passed away that the CIA was plotting this against Venezuela and the US already dropped the Cartel de los Soles narrative.
Now, points 7 and 8 are not accurate. Yes, the International Law applies in US soil. They have International obligations because they signed the UN Charter and most Geneva Conventions. So yes, the judge must apply International Law. The U.S. not only violated its own Constitutional Law by ausing force without the Congress approval, but also International Law.
Judge Hellerstein had similar cases in the past. First, the World Trade Center Case in 2006. The Judge recognised the City of New York immunity. The Judge also stopped Trump recently, when Trump tried to use the Alien Enemies Act. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Trump immunity in the past. Why they would apply their Internal Law differently? As a matter of International Law, the jurisprudence also says that recognition and legitimacy is not a requirement for personal immunity of presidents. I'm talking about the famous Al-Assad case before the French Court of Casation. Now, the U.S. and Trump before and after the bombing of Venezuela recognized that they were kidnapping a President. Trump posts on social media prove that, and their recognition of Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez as now president. THEY ARE RECOGNIZING VENEZUELA'S LEGITIMATE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.
The Law is very clear, both domestically and International Law, Maduro is an innocent man, a President with immunity and the act of aggression was completely illegal. Free Maduro, as Chávez said "Unidad, Lucha, Batalla y Victoria!" Now is time to fight through legal means.