On Monday, September 23, the Argentine courts, led by the Federal Court of Buenos Aires, issued an international arrest warrant for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This action followed a prior arrest warrant issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela against Argentine President Javier Milei for the “theft” of a Venezuelan cargo plane that was confiscated in Buenos Aires and subsequently handed over to the United States.
The Venezuelan warrant also encompasses Argentine Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich, and Karina Milei, the Secretary General of the Presidency and sister of the president.
This Argentine warrant originated from a case initiated after a complaint was filed by the NGO Argentine Forum for the Defense of Democracy (FADD), based on the principle of universal jurisdiction. Venezuelan victims who had sought refuge in Argentina testified in court about human rights violations.
The judges of the Federal Court of Buenos Aires have stated that the evidence is enough to warrant an international arrest for Maduro, and they have requested Interpol to issue red alerts against the Venezuelan president as well as another 30 members of the Chavista government, including the Minister of the Interior, Diosdado Cabello.
Can Argentina stop Maduro and Milei?
“Both Argentina and Germany have universal jurisdiction laws, which enable the investigation of international crimes regardless of where they were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims,” Kai Ambos, a professor at the University of Göttingen and an international judge in The Hague, told DW in an interview.
“Argentine courts have jurisdiction over international crimes, such as the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Maduro-led regime in Venezuela,” Alejandro Chehtman, a professor at the Torcuato Di Tella University School of Law and a CONICET researcher, informed DW from Buenos Aires.
Photos of political prisoners during a protest for their release in Caracas. Image: Cristian Hernandez/AP/picture alliance
However, both experts emphasize that what could prevent Maduro and Milei from being investigated, arrested, or tried in this context is the immunity that heads of state hold under international law.
“Maduro – like Putin, for example – enjoys immunity in the context of horizontal relations between states. In the scenario of ‘Argentina versus Venezuela,’ one state cannot intervene in the affairs of another by investigating or persecuting its head of state. This authority lies exclusively with international courts,” says Ambos. For instance, he cites that while the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office is investigating Russian soldiers and generals for potential war crimes linked to the aggression against Ukraine, horizontal immunity fundamentally hinders any similar investigation against Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Argentina has initiated nearly 100 cases in its recent history concerning universal jurisdiction, according to Chehtman, but “it has not succeeded in arresting any defendants. In Maduro’s case, the likelihood of success is even lower. A sitting head of state cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of another state’s courts; this is referred to as sovereign equality.”
“Furthermore, concerning Maduro’s complaint, Venezuela’s jurisdiction in Argentina does not appear to have a solid legal foundation based on accepted principles, such as territoriality or active or passive nationality,” says the Argentine jurist.
A measure of “domestic and international policy”
“Argentina cannot, and should not, legally issue an international arrest warrant against Maduro. If it were to do so, it would be deemed illegal according to legal precedent, as this authority is reserved for the International Criminal Court,” Chehtman emphasizes.
He adds that “such measures often relate to domestic and international politics. This Argentine court seeks to send a clear message to Argentine public opinion, and Milei’s government aims to express a political stance to the international community. Similarly, Maduro’s government, being in a more vulnerable and precarious political and legal situation, desires to return the ‘favor’ to Milei.”
Javier Milei, President of Argentina. Image: Matias Baglietto/picture alliance
“I believe that, regardless of one’s views on the ideology and state policies of different heads of state, there are no substantial legal arguments to investigate Milei in this case,” he states.
Additionally, despite several countries recognizing Edmundo González Urrutia as the election winner, Nicolás Maduro remains the acting head of state with effective territorial control over Venezuela. “If that premise were used, it would constitute a very weak argument,” explains the Argentine expert in Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction.
“Political instrumentalization of Justice”
According to Kai Ambos, the current legal dispute between Argentina and Venezuela “is more political theater than a legal matter.” In both instances, it represents the “political instrumentalization of justice, which ultimately undermines the law as a means for conflict resolution—a phenomenon unfortunately observed frequently in Latin America. This also discredits the judiciary, which is supposed to be independent and is clearly not in Venezuela, where there is, in fact, no separation of powers. In Argentina, there is some separation, but this case also seems subject to political intervention.”
He recalls the historic case of Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, who, in 1998, sought the arrest of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London while he was receiving medical treatment: “Although the arrest warrant and the extradition procedure for Pinochet in London held significant symbolic value in the fight against impunity in Latin America, it remained symbolic since Pinochet was never extradited to Spain or prosecuted there (or later in Chile).”
He also notes that the arrest warrant for the former leader of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), Erich Honecker—who was prosecuted between 1992 and 1993 in the Federal Republic of Germany—was only feasible because Honecker was no longer in power, as the GDR had ceased to exist.
Nicolás Maduro, president of Venezuela. Image: Fausto Torrealba/REUTERS
Complaints against Maduro are being investigated by the ICC
On September 7, Argentina urged the ICC to order Maduro’s arrest. Is this a plausible course of action? “An investigation is ongoing at the International Criminal Court (ICC) based on three reports from the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission, which indicate well-founded and reasonable suspicions that crimes against humanity are being committed under that regime,” Kai Ambos explains. The ICC has opened the case ‘Situation of Venezuela I’ to examine the alleged crimes that the Venezuelan regime may have committed.
“According to the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, the investigated states can challenge the admissibility of ICC investigations, and Venezuela has done just that. However, the ICC Appeals Chamber has declared the investigation admissible, fundamentally stating that Venezuela is not undertaking a serious investigation into the alleged international crimes,” Ambos clarifies. Notably, Maduro appears to be cooperating with ICC prosecutor Khan, but has not granted access to the UN investigative mission in Venezuelan territory.
The next step for ICC prosecutor Karim Khan would be to request an arrest warrant for Nicolás Maduro and other suspects, similar to what he did with Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin. Alejandro Chehtman hopes that the ICC can advance in this direction. “We are very attentive to this,” concludes Kai Ambos.
(rml)
International Arrest Warrant for Nicolás Maduro: Implications and Insights
The Argentine courts, through the Federal Court of Buenos Aires, ordered on Monday, September 23, an international arrest warrant for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This unprecedented legal action coincides with a Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela’s warrant against Argentine President Javier Milei for allegedly “stealing” a Venezuelan cargo plane that had been confiscated in Buenos Aires and subsequently transferred to the United States.
The Venezuelan arrest order extends to key Argentine officials, including Minister of Security Patricia Bullrich and the Secretary General of the Presidency and sister of President Milei, Karina Milei. This complex legal and political landscape raises critical questions about jurisdiction, human rights, and international relations.
Universal Jurisdiction: A Legal Framework
The basis for the Argentine courts’ warrant stems from a complaint filed by the NGO Argentine Forum for the Defense of Democracy (FADD), invoking the principle of universal jurisdiction. This legal principle allows countries to prosecute individuals for serious crimes like torture or genocide, regardless of where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the accused or victims.
According to the judges of the Federal Court of Buenos Aires, there is sufficient evidence to justify Maduro’s international arrest and they have requested Interpol to issue red alerts against Maduro and 30 members of his government, including Minister of the Interior, Diosdado Cabello.
Understanding the Jurisdictional Challenges
Both Kai Ambos, a professor at the University of Göttingen, and Alejandro Chehtman from the Torcuato Di Tella University, emphasize that heads of state often enjoy immunity under international law, complicating the potential for Maduro and Milei to face trial in these cases. This concept of sovereign equality means that one state cannot unilaterally intervene in the internal affairs of another state.
- Immunity of Heads of State: Maduro, like other leaders, benefits from immunity regarding actions taken while in office.
- Historical Context: Similar situations in international law show that legal action against sitting presidents is fraught with challenges.
The Political Dimensions Behind the Arrest Warrants
The extradition and arrest warrant for Nicolás Maduro could be perceived as more of a political maneuver than a sincere legal effort. According to Chehtman, such measures often serve to signal a country’s stance both domestically and internationally. Argentina’s court appears intent on signaling to its citizens, while Milei’s government seeks to assert its position on human rights violations by the Maduro regime.
Similarly, Maduro’s actions to issue a warrant against Milei may reflect a desire to respond politically, showcasing his resistance against international condemnation.
Political Context in Recent History
Political tensions and historical legal significance can cloud straightforward judicial processes. For example:
| Event | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Pinochet Arrest | 1998 | Symbolic for South American justice despite no extradition |
| Honecker Investigation | 1992 | Legal action taken after the fall of the GDR |
Investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC)
On September 7, Argentina formally requested the ICC to issue an arrest warrant against Maduro. The outlook for this request hinges on various legal mechanisms, including the Rome Statute’s principle of complementarity, which allows investigated states to challenge the admissibility of ICC investigations.
Despite Venezuela’s objections, the ICC Appeals Chamber deemed the investigation viable due to a lack of serious internal investigation by Venezuela concerning suspected international crimes. Current investigations by the ICC could lead to similar actions against Maduro as seen with other global leaders, pending sufficient evidence and political context.
Key Takeaways from Current Proceedings
- Legal Complexity: The invocation of universal jurisdiction has stirring implications for international law.
- Political Theatre: The exchange of warrants indicates a political rather than entirely judicial dispute.
- ICC Involvement: Ongoing ICC investigations underscore a broader concern for human rights in Venezuela.
The Implications of Legal and Political Instrumentalization
Kai Ambos argues that the legal dispute between Argentina and Venezuela serves more as “political theatre” than a pure legal issue. The intersection of law and politics can delegitimize judicial institutions, particularly in places where independent judiciary frameworks are already under strain.
As we observe developments in these cases, the overarching question remains whether the international community will prioritize justice over the political ramifications of these judicial proceedings.
Considerations for Global Human Rights Advocacy
- International Cooperation: For universal jurisdiction to be effective, nations must collaborate on accountability for human rights abuses.
- Public Awareness: Advocacy groups can leverage media to raise awareness about the situations in countries like Venezuela.
Conclusion
The interplay of legal frameworks, political motivations, and international relations in the case of Nicolás Maduro signifies not only a compelling drama unfolding in South America but also raises critical discussions about justice, sovereignty, and the future of human rights enforcement globally. The outcome remains uncertain, yet the international community is keenly observing these developments.
