Whether you’re a law student, legal professional, or just intrigued by how the world’s legal systems interact on the grand stage, this episode gives you a grounded, no-nonsense look at what happens when international law collides with real-life events—and why, most of the time, it’s politics, not prosecution, that rules the day.

Welcome to this episode of Lawyer Talk, where Steve Palmer is joined by Troy Henricksen to tackle one of the most complex and often misunderstood topics in law: international law.

Inspired by current headlines—like the controversial arrest (or as some call it, "invasion" or "extraction") involving Venezuela’s Maduro—Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen dig into what international law actually means, especially in today’s highly charged political landscape.

In this conversation, they explore why international law tends to be more of a political talking point than a truly enforceable legal system, comparing it to the concrete laws and regulations that govern within the United States. They break down misconceptions about the “power” of international courts, the role of treaties, and what really happens when governments break these so-called international rules.

Here are 3 key takeaways from our conversation:

International Law Is Largely Political: As Steve Palmer emphasized, international law often serves as a political tool, rather than an enforceable set of rules. Without true enforcement mechanisms, its impact is more theoretical than practical.

Enforcement Relies on Power and Treaties: Troy Henricksen pointed out that entities like international courts might issue indictments, but without mechanisms (such as treaties or extradition agreements) and political will, enforcement is minimal.

U.S. Law Prevails International Law Domestically: Laws governing the U.S. (federal, state, and local) are what truly govern day-to-day realities. International law rarely, if ever, supersedes these in practice—especially in local jurisdictions.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

All right, Lawyer talk off the record on the air today to talk about international law. Sort of the heavy topic, or one of the heavy topics of the time.

Every headline.

Every headline, yeah. There was this. Some people might call it an extradition and arrest of the head of Venezuela, Maduro. Some might call it.

I think I've seen invasion.

Invasion. Some might call it something else. But there's a lot of discussion about international law. I even saw who's the new mayor of New York, Mandani.

Mandani said it violated federal international law.

Federal international law. Look, for those who watch this regularly, they know I'm not taking any political positions on this. I'm not going to tell you what if I think it's right or wrong, what I think about that's irrelevant. But I think we can talk a little bit about international law. Yeah, they teach that in law school. Internet. There's an international law class in law school.

I don't think so anymore.

I didn't take it.

I don't think there is an international law.

I remember looking at a big book that said international law.

We don't get taught anything on it at all.

So this is going to be more of an esoteric conversation. International law in this context, and maybe any other context is meaningless.

Yeah.

And what do I mean by that? I don't mean it's meaningless from the sense that it doesn't. It might inform some of how we operate as a general policy matter, we being our country. It might inform how other countries interact with other countries, and it might inform some of those how we function. But law as enforced, generally speaking, comes at the end of a gun barrel. Yeah, I hate to say that, and I hate to be overdramatic. I don't mean to be overdramatic, but a law is not relevant if it can't be enforced.

Yeah.

So the United States of America has law. You can find it, by and large, in something called the United States Code. And sadly, I will give you an opinion on this. Sadly, you can find a bunch of it in the code of federal regulations, because we now have these regulatory bodies that promulgate rules and those become laws, and people get. But anyway, you can find it in the code books that usually come under the category of some federal government entity, so Congress, some agency, whatever. And you have other laws in states, and you have other laws in cities and local jurisdictions. I mean, those are the laws that govern how we operate within the United States of America. We can't be prosecuted.

We being our government, the United States can't be prosecuted for violating international law. So really, I think when you hear that it's political.

Yeah, that's it.

These are political discussions. And I'm not discounting that. I'm not discounting that at all. Because we still have to interact as a country with other countries. And you can have an argument on one side about how we have to be strong and establish our place in the world, as well as our part of the world, and whether somebody else on the other side, if we don't fulfill that, somebody else will. I mean, where you take the other position that we should be isolated, you could take a position that we should get along nicely with the United nations, with NATO or whatever else. But those are political discussions, by and large, I think. And we don't operate like the laws here in Ohio, where we function, are not governed by anything international.

No.

So international law is, I think, a bit of a misnomer.

Yeah. And I always thought about that whenever I think the Palestine, Israel stuff is popping off and they're like, we have indictments for both their leaders. And I was like. Everybody was like, this is great. And I was like.

I mean, we being like, Palestine has indicted Netanyahu or vice versa.

No, no, no. The international, like, court, whoever they are, that they indicted both their leaders. And I'm like, my guys, that's not gonna. What are they gonna do? Go to Israel, execute, like an arrest warrant? Like one. Who's even doing that?

Right. Right now, there are exceptions. We have these other things called treaties. And treaties have sort of a unique place. So we can have extradition treaties with other countries. Some we don't have extradition treaties with. So, you know, everybody knows of. There's always stories of people getting.

Forget the student. I think he went over to. Was it China, Korea, and he stole a poster or whatever.

Oh, yeah.

You know, it's like international law didn't help.

No.

Right. So it's like unless you have an enforcement mechanism, international law doesn't really get there. Now, treaties are different. So, you know, we can agree that we have a treaty or an agreement with another country to abide by certain rules. And that may be a little bit different, but it's not like the United States government is going to. Or Trump or anybody acting on behalf of the military or otherwise in this. What do you want to call it? Extraction? Because I don't want to use it. I don't want to use a charged term in the removal.

Extraction, takedown, arrest, invasion, whatever it is. Nobody's going to prosecute the United States internationally for that conduct. Not saying it's right, not saying it's wrong, but I'm saying there's not going to be an international prosecution. So we can lay international law through.

Us and hopefully we can do follow up on Maduro's case as it keeps developing. I think that'll be interesting.

That will be interesting to actually see the prosecution. Now, that said, there was an indictment out of New York and it was in 2020, so not the current Department of Justice, but a different. It's all the same Department of Justice, but other players apparently thought enough to indict this guy and charge him with drug trafficking crimes. And to that extent I can comment. Right. So if I were representing Maduro, I would say give me the discovery. I want the evidence. I want to see what evidence you have against my client.

I want to see if you can prove the case that you've alleged.

Yeah.

And it may go to court and it may go to trial. Time will tell. All right, Lawyer talk off the record, on the air. If you got questions about this or any other topic, shoot them to us right there in the social comments. Or you can go to lawyertalkpodcast.com and shoot me an email there.