Nearly six months after U.S. Special Forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the legal status of the case faces a significant hurdle rooted in a nearly century-old treaty. The Trump administration described the operation as an extradition rather than an invasion, framing it as a legal matter to be resolved through the courts. However, when federal prosecutors bring Maduro’s case to trial, they may find that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction due to provisions contained in a 1922 extradition treaty between the United States and Venezuela.

That treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate and president, includes an arbitration clause requiring that any disputes over the treaty’s interpretation or execution be resolved by a panel of independent arbitrators rather than the courts. Venezuela has asserted that Maduro’s capture was unlawful under international law, directly challenging the legality of the extradition and invoking the treaty’s arbitration mechanism. As a result, Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is overseeing the case, may be compelled to suspend proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration.

Legal experts note this is consistent with longstanding U.S. judicial practice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that prosecutions must comply with the terms of applicable extradition treaties. Historical precedents include cases such as United States v. Rauscher in 1886, which invalidated prosecution on charges that did not align with extradition terms, and a 1992 case involving a Mexican citizen’s extrajudicial transfer to the U.S., where the Court underscored the necessity of treaty adherence despite permitting the trial to proceed.

What makes the Maduro case distinct is that the 1922 treaty specifically delegates disputes to arbitration panels rather than the courts. Scholars suggest the invocation of this clause is not surprising and reflects standard approaches to treaty enforcement when arbitration provisions are involved. Should the arbitrators find that Maduro’s capture breached the treaty, the United States would be obligated to release him.

Experts also indicate that international arbitrators would evaluate the case according to relevant legal principles in force at the treaty’s signing, including those codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. These principles emphatically condemn the unauthorized invasion of sovereign states, especially targeting heads of state, which could weigh against the legality of the operation. Critics argue the raid already infringes upon international law and that any U.S. attempt to circumvent arbitration would further undermine the case’s legitimacy under both international and domestic law.

Though the arbitration process could delay or complicate the trial, it is viewed by some legal observers as essential to upholding the rule of law and mitigating bilateral tensions. A resolution through arbitration might frustrate political leaders advocating for a swift prosecution but aligns with historical U.S. policy championed in the early 20th century by figures like Presidents William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, who promoted arbitration as a means to peacefully resolve international disputes.

As the Maduro case approaches court proceedings, the arbitration clause in the 1922 extradition treaty is likely to play a central role in determining whether the trial can continue or if the Venezuelan leader will be released in accordance with treaty obligations.