Argentina has formally requested the extradition of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from the United States to face charges of crimes against humanity, marking an unprecedented use of universal jurisdiction by Buenos Aires that could test both international law principles and the Trump administration's Venezuela policy.
The extradition request, filed by Argentine prosecutors in recent days, invokes the doctrine of universal jurisdiction—a legal principle that allows states to prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes regardless of where those crimes occurred or the nationality of the perpetrator or victims.
Javier Milei's government has positioned the move as a matter of international accountability, citing evidence compiled over years of alleged systematic repression, torture, and extrajudicial killings by the Maduro regime. Argentine prosecutors have been building a case since 2021, when the country's judiciary opened an investigation into alleged crimes committed against Venezuelan opposition figures and civilians.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. Universal jurisdiction emerged from the post-World War II consensus that certain crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity—are so grave that any nation has standing to prosecute perpetrators, even absent direct connection to the crimes. The principle gained renewed prominence with Spain's attempt to prosecute former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the 1990s and subsequent cases in European courts.
Yet the Argentine request faces formidable practical and political obstacles. The United States has no extradition treaty with Argentina for such cases, and American courts have historically been reluctant to transfer individuals to foreign jurisdictions for trials based on universal jurisdiction—particularly when geopolitical considerations intersect with legal principles.
The Trump administration's position on Maduro further complicates the calculus. While Washington has maintained sanctions against the Venezuelan government and recognizes opposition leader Edmundo González as the legitimate president-elect, the administration has also signaled interest in potential negotiations with Caracas regarding energy cooperation and migration control.
During his first term, President Donald Trump pursued a "maximum pressure" campaign against Maduro, including indicting the Venezuelan leader on narco-terrorism charges in 2020. However, the U.S. Justice Department's own indictment—which remains active—creates a jurisdictional conflict with Argentina's extradition request.
Legal experts note that if Maduro were to be taken into U.S. custody, American prosecutors would likely prioritize their own charges over foreign extradition requests. "The U.S. has historically asserted primacy when it has brought its own charges," explained Reed Brody, a war crimes prosecutor who has worked on universal jurisdiction cases. "It would be highly unusual for Washington to defer to Argentina's request when it has pending charges of its own."
For Milei—an ideological libertarian who has made anti-leftist foreign policy a cornerstone of his presidency—the extradition request serves multiple purposes. It signals solidarity with Venezuelan opposition movements and diaspora communities, reinforces Argentina's break from previous center-left governments that maintained cordial relations with Caracas, and positions Buenos Aires as a champion of accountability in Latin America.
Yet the move also carries risks. Maduro retains the backing of Russia, China, and Cuba, and has demonstrated remarkable resilience in maintaining power despite economic collapse, mass emigration, and international isolation. Argentina's aggressive legal stance could complicate regional diplomatic efforts aimed at negotiating a political transition in Venezuela.
The broader question is whether universal jurisdiction—long championed by human rights advocates as a tool for accountability when domestic courts fail or refuse to act—can function effectively in an increasingly multipolar international system. The International Criminal Court, which also operates on complementary jurisdiction principles, has struggled to enforce arrest warrants against sitting heads of state, most notably in the case of Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who evaded justice for years before his eventual overthrow.
Maduro currently remains in Venezuela, despite reports of potential exile negotiations. The prospect of his voluntary travel to the United States—a prerequisite for Argentina's extradition request to have any practical effect—appears remote at best.
What the Argentine move does accomplish is placing Maduro's alleged crimes firmly within the framework of international criminal accountability mechanisms. Whether that translates to actual prosecution depends on a complex intersection of law, politics, and power that will ultimately be decided not in Buenos Aires, but in Washington and Caracas.
For now, the extradition request stands as a statement of principle—and a reminder that in the architecture of international justice, formal legal authority and practical enforcement capacity remain two very different things.
