Legality of US capture of Maduro in focus at United Nations

The legality of the U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro will be under the spotlight at the United Nations on Monday, but Washington is unlikely to face strong criticism from allies over its military operation in the Latin American state.

The 15-member U.N. Security Council will meet on Monday after U.S. Special Forces seized Maduro in an operation on Saturday that knocked out power in parts of Caracas and struck military installations. Venezuelan authorities also said it was deadly. Maduro is now in detention in New York awaiting a court appearance on Monday on drug charges.

Russia, China and other Venezuelan allies have accused the United States of violating international law, but U.S. allies – many of whom opposed Maduro – have been less vocal about any concerns over the use of military force.

“Judging by the reactions from European leaders to date, I suspect that U.S. allies will equivocate exquisitely in the Security Council,” said Richard Gowan, director of global issues and institutions at the International Crisis Group, a think-tank.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres views the U.S. operation as setting “a dangerous precedent,” his spokesperson said on Saturday. Many legal experts also say the U.S. action was illegal, although Washington will be able to block any attempts by the U.N. Security Council to hold it accountable.

WASHINGTON CITES SELF-DEFENSE

In the wake of the U.S. operation, European states have largely called for international law to be respected without specifically calling out Washington, though French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said the U.S. had violated “the principle of not resorting to force, that underpins international law.”

The U.N. Charter states that members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” There are currently 193 members of the United Nations.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz on Sunday cited Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which says that nothing “shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”

“In this case, you have a drug kingpin, an illegitimate leader indicted in the United States, coordinating with the likes of China, Russia, Iran, terrorist groups like Hezbollah, pumping drugs, thugs, and weapons into the United States of America, threatening to invade its neighbors,” he told Fox News.

However, legal experts say the U.S. operation was illegal because it lacked U.N. Security Council authorization, did not have Venezuelan consent, and does not constitute self-defense against an armed attack.

“The action violated international law,” said Tom Dannenbaum, a professor at Stanford Law School. “Serious legal objections to Maduro’s regime do not eliminate the need for a legal basis to use military force in Venezuela.”

U.S. VETO SHIELDS WASHINGTON

But Washington cannot be held accountable for any violation by the U.N. Security Council, which is charged with maintaining international peace and security. The U.S. wields a veto – along with Russia, China, Britain and France – so can block action.

Maduro was indicted in 2020 on U.S. charges including narco-terrorism conspiracy. He has always denied any criminal involvement.

“Even if Maduro were to be responsible for the smuggling of some drugs into the U.S., such smuggling of drugs does not constitute an armed attack and does not authorize the U.S. to use force in self-defense,” said Milena Sterio, a professor at Cleveland State University College of Law.

She also said Washington “cannot exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction to arrest individuals anywhere it pleases.”

Adil Haque, a professor at Rutgers Law School, also said the U.S. capture of Maduro “was an illegal infringement of the inviolability and immunity of a sitting Head of State, who may lack democratic legitimacy but was clearly effectively discharging his official functions on behalf of his State.”