An American legal expert suggests that the upcoming trial of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in the United States, or the justification for his detention, may hinge on a controversial legal opinion dating back to 1989.
Marjorie Cohn, a professor of international law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, stated that the prosecution reflects a recurring pattern of Washington undermining international law.
“The US Constitution clearly states that ratified international treaties are the supreme law of the land, and judges must adhere to them,” Cohn emphasized. She noted that the United States is a party to the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of military force against another state except in self-defense or with the authorization of the Security Council.
“Neither of those conditions were met in the case of Venezuela, nor did Venezuela pose any imminent threat to the United States,” she added.
The expert argued that framing Maduro’s apprehension as a law enforcement operation lacks any legal basis. “No state has the authority to enforce laws within the territory of another state without its explicit consent, which Venezuela did not grant.”
She asserted that this constitutes a clear violation of sovereignty under both the UN Charter and customary international law.
Regarding Maduro’s immunity, Cohn explained, “Nicolas Maduro enjoys head of state immunity, which does not lapse simply because a state does not recognize him politically, especially given that the United States itself previously recognized him as President of Venezuela.”
She highlighted a notable legal paradox, stating that “the US Supreme Court recently affirmed broad immunity for the US President for official acts, which could also be used as a basis for the defense in this case.”
Cohn pointed to the deeper issue: the potential reliance by the US prosecution on a legal opinion issued by the Department of Justice in 1989, months before the US invasion of Panama and the arrest of then-Panamanian President Manuel Noriega.
