American Federal Criminal Law
The capture of Nicolás Maduro, arranged and politically led by Donald Trump, marks a decisive turning point in the relationship between US federal criminal law and public international law. This is not an isolated event or a temporary improvisation, but rather the most complete expression of a legal and political doctrine that the United States has been consolidating for decades: the expansion of its criminal jurisdiction beyond its borders when it considers essential national security interests compromised.
From a strictly internal perspective, the central question is not whether the United States violated norms of international law—a relevant issue but external to its domestic legal logic—but whether the federal criminal system considers the capture of a foreign defendant legal, valid, and actionable, even when it concerns someone who exercises the functions of head of state, once that individual is in the custody of its courts. Under US federal criminal law, the answer is unequivocal: yes.
For the United States, the legality of the capture does not depend on the way in which the accused is placed at the disposal of the court, but on the existence of a previously affirmed criminal jurisdiction and the competence of the judicial body to try the crimes charged. The effectiveness of criminal jurisdiction prevails over the way the accused obtains it. For the international community, however, this case opens a dangerous crack: that of the use of criminal law as the executing arm of geopolitical power. That conflict—and not the criminal process itself—constitutes the true core of the historical debate that this episode inaugurates.
American federal criminal law is structured on a clear and expansive principle: jurisdiction is not exhausted in the physical territory of the State, but rather extends to all conduct that produces substantial, direct or foreseeable effects on the United States, its population or its national security. This conception is based on three fundamental pillars: the principle of objective territoriality or effects doctrine; the principle of protection of the essential interests of the State; and the federal criminalization of transnational crimes, particularly drug trafficking, terrorism, and organized crime.
Within this framework, the United States Congress has classified as federal crimes conduct that can be carried out entirely outside its territory, as long as it is destined for the United States market, affects its citizens or is aimed at weakening its institutional order, its public health or its national security. International drug trafficking, especially when it is articulated with armed organizations or state structures, occupies the highest level of criminal prosecution within the federal system.
From this technical perspective, the capture of Maduro does not constitute the beginning of the criminal process, but rather the material execution of an already existing persecution. Maduro had been formally accused before a US federal court for crimes of conspiracy for international drug trafficking, narcoterrorism, use of armed criminal organizations to introduce narcotics into the United States and participation in criminal structures with a direct impact on its national security. These accusations are not mere political statements: they are valid procedural acts within the federal judicial system, supported by arrest warrants issued by competent courts. The United States, in this logic, does not create jurisdiction with the capture, but rather executes a previously asserted criminal jurisdiction.
One of the most characteristic principles—and least understood outside the American legal sphere—is the doctrine known as male captus, bene detentus. According to this conception, the way in which an accused is brought before a court does not automatically invalidate the jurisdiction of the judicial body to try him. In simple terms: if the accused is physically before the court, the court has jurisdiction to try him, even if the method of transfer was irregular, illegal or controversial.
This doctrine has been repeatedly upheld by American jurisprudence and is part of the structural core of its federal criminal law. From this logic, the legality of the arrest is not a condition for the validity of the trial; Any previous illegalities may generate political or international responsibilities, but they do not extinguish the criminal action. Therefore, once Maduro was transferred and placed at the disposal of a federal court in New York, criminal jurisdiction was fully consolidated.
One of the most invoked arguments against capture is the immunity of the head of state. However, a structural difference between classical international law and American domestic law emerges here. The United States has maintained for decades that the immunity of heads of state is not absolute, that it does not cover serious crimes of a transnational nature and that it can be denied when the Executive Branch itself does not recognize the accused as a legitimate head of state. In the case of Maduro, the United States stopped recognizing him as the legitimate president of Venezuela since 2019. For the US legal system, this is not a merely political position, but a legal act of the Executive Branch with internal effects. Consequently, Maduro is not treated as a head of state with personal immunity, but as an individual accused of serious federal crimes.
The capture thus acquires a dual nature. Under federal criminal law, it is conceived as the execution of a valid court order whose sole objective is to place the accused at the disposal of the competent court. From constitutional law and international law, however, it is an operation carried out through the use of military force in foreign territory, without cooperation from the territorial State and without a classic extradition procedure. This duality generates a profound legal split: criminal matters are valid at the domestic level, while international matters become highly controversial. However, the US legal system does not automatically subordinate its criminal jurisdiction to international law, except when Congress or the Constitution itself expressly provides for it.
This scheme is completed with the role of the President of the United States. From the internal constitutional point of view, the President concentrates not only the leadership of the Executive Branch, but also the command of the Armed Forces and the conduct of foreign policy. Trump acted based on his status as Commander in Chief, the classification of drug trafficking as a threat to national security and the doctrine of preventive defense against transnational threats. Although this action can be discussed from the War Powers Resolution and from the principle of separation of powers, this does not automatically invalidate the subsequent criminal consequence: the judicial prosecution of the accused.
Finally, no honest analysis can omit the material background of the conflict. Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, and political control of that resource has historically been a determining factor in US policy towards the country. In this scenario, federal criminal law operates as a legal instrument of a broader geopolitical strategy. This is not an anomaly, but rather a recurring practice in the history of the United States: the use of criminal law as a mechanism for projecting power when fundamental strategic interests are at stake.
Trump’s actions from public international law
Donald Trump’s actions in ordering and carrying out the capture of Nicolás Maduro constitutes, from the perspective of public international law, a legally illegitimate act that exceeds any current discussion about the personal figure of the Venezuelan ruler or the political assessment of his regime. International law is not built to reward virtuous governments or protect unpopular leaders; On the contrary, it is built as a system of limits on state power, designed precisely to prevent force from replacing law in relations between States.
WHEN JUSTICE DOES NOT ARRIVE, POWER ALWAYS TAKES PLACE
Perhaps the most revealing fact of this entire episode is that Trump’s actions could only be celebrated by some because the international system arrived late, or never arrived, in the face of the Venezuelan people’s need for real and effective protection of their human rights. If the international mechanisms had been activated in time, if the complaints had not been trapped in statements without consequences, there would be no room for applause in the face of a unilateral action that violates international law.
The social and political acceptance of this type of intervention does not arise from its legal legitimacy, but from the void left by a system that promised protection and did not guarantee it. Recognizing this omission is essential to understand why power occupies the place that law abandons. There was no applause for Trump out of respect for the law, but out of desperation in the face of inaction. That’s the uncomfortable truth.
A system that does not respond in time to the suffering of the people ends up legitimizing, by omission, acts that it later claims to condemn. As long as law does not return to the place it abandoned, the world will continue celebrating forceful solutions and calling them justice.
@dracynthiacastro
You may also be interested
by CONTENT NEWS
