Latest update June 11th, 2026 12:40 AM
Latest News
- Development bank risks becoming welfare agency – former ambassador
- One dead, two suspects flee after botched Chinese supermarket robbery
- Baby drowns in pool of water at Cracrana Village, Region 9
- ‘Three months, no pay’ …Wales gas project bus drivers protest unpaid salaries
- Govt. backs down on rapists’ secrecy
Venezuela already decided how border controversy will be determined – Interim President tells ICJ
(Kaieteur News) – Interim President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez on Monday reaffirmed that the country’s position on the Guyana border controversy will not change, despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in determining the issue.
Rodriguez addressed the world court on the final day of oral submissions on the Guyana /Venezuela border controversy where Guyana is seeking a determination of the validity of the 1899 arbitral award which gave the country control of the resource rich Essequibo region.
Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez
In her submission, Rodriguez told the ICJ that citizens have already decided by way of a 2023 referendum how the matter will be settled.
“The people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the 3rd of December 2023 turned out in large numbers at the polls and gave us a series of clear and unequivocal mandates. Firstly, the mandate to maintain the historical position of existential matters such as independence and territorial integrity to judicial mechanisms. Secondly, their mandate to uphold the Geneva Agreement as the only valid, legal instrument for resolving territorial dispute over the Essequibo.”
The Venezuelan president said her country still believes there could be a negotiated solution to the settlement.
“A negotiated solution is therefore an inevitable and an indispensable condition of the controversy. The Geneva Agreement buries and moves beyond the discussion over the validity of invalidity of the 1899 award.”
INVALID AWARD
Professor Paolo Palchetti, lawyer for Venezuela addressed the legitimacy of the award. He said that while Guyana insisted there was precedence establishing that at the end of the 19th century, arbitral tribunals were already established as a common means for settlement, in the case of Great Britain (Guyana’s colonial master) and Venezuela, the general practice of this system was not complied with.
The lawyer posited that, “…for this reason, the award is null and void.”
Professor Palchetti stated, “Mr. President. Members of the court Venezuela and Guyana hold opposing views regarding the role played by Venezuela in the negotiation of the arbitration treaty. Guyana pretends that Venezuela was closely involved in the treaty’s negotiation… [When in fact], Venezuela played no role in the negotiation…”
The lawyer claimed there is correspondence that confirms that Venezuela was absent from the negotiation.
He emphasised, “There is no evidence that Venezuela was involved in the negotiation because it was not. Reading this correspondence carefully, one can see that there is not a single reference to the position of a Venezuelan Government, one would expect to find sentences like, I have instructions from Caracas, or I need to consult a Venezuelan Government.”
Palchetti continued, “Mr. President, Venezuela has been victim of fraud, and the evidence before you amply justifies the conclusion that the arbitration treaty is invalid, and as a consequence, the award is invalid.”
Representative of the Government of Guyana, Diplomats and the legal team are pictured at the Hague Netherlands at the conclusion of the Guyana/ Venezuela border controversy case (Photo credit: Anil Nandlall Facebook)
ROGUE TRIBUNAL
In his submission on behalf of Venezuela, Professor Christian J. Tams, noted that the tribunal itself showed no respect for the terms by which the parties had defined its task.
He held that “It operated according to its own logic, deciding what was not asked of it, ignoring what it had to decide and violating its absolute duty to decide on the basis of law. We might say, as we have in the written pleadings, that in rendering this award, this tribunal went rogue.”
According to him, despite Guyana’s strange claims to the country, now, the result of this rogue award was a disaster for Venezuela.
“President Martin says compromise line gave Britain over 90% of the disputed territory, and that Venezuela retained control of the mouth of the Orinoco was not seriously in contention, as Lord Russell had noted during the proceedings, ‘Britain had explicitly admitted that the Orinoco was Venezuelan.’” Professor Tams asserted.
The lawyer alluded to an 1899 punch magazine cartoon illustration, which showed the then Prime Minister Lord Salisbury chuckling barely capable of holding on to everything the arbitration held for Britain the territory and gold mines wrapped up nicely in the Union Jack—the British flag.
He continued, “The caption [of the illustration] says, ‘I like arbitration in the proper place.’”
“Mr. President, members of the court. This arbitration may have brought plenty for Britain, but it did not bring peace amidst a civil war, faced with regular threats of military invasion, from the British ultimatum of 1895 to the crushing blockade European powers imposed on it, soon thereafter, Venezuela was not in a position to react meaningfully, as many other nations in colonial or quasi colonial situations, Venezuela had to put on a brave face. It had to accept the 1899 Award, which enacted coercion through the civility of the legal form,” Tams claimed.
DECISION LOOMING
The matter wrapped up with Venezuela team emphasising their position that the Geneva Agreement gave them the right to invalidate the award and hence open a new negotiation of boundary lines. Both Guyana and Venezuela presented their arguments in two rounds of oral pleadings between May 4 and May 11 before the ICJ. The court is set to announce its decision in the coming months.
Guyana’s Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, in a statement at the conclusion of the matter said that the court will now deliberate on the matters before it and, in the coming months, will issue its final Judgment on the merits of the case, which will be legally binding on both parties.
“We will await the Court’s final Judgment on the merits with patience, decorum, dignity and optimism. We will continue to address Venezuela in a spirit of peace, cooperation and friendship, and as sovereign equals. We will respect Venezuela’s sovereignty, as we have always done, and insist that Venezuela refrain from trespassing on, or threatening, Guyana’s sovereignty.” Nandlall said.
He noted while Venezuela’s representatives said they do not accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction and will not abide by its rulings, it is hoped that Venezuela’s expression of disrespect for the proceedings will not be followed through.
“We hope, that after the passions recede, and responsible government officials reflect, they will conclude, as we have done, that both states are best served by an end to this longstanding conflict, and that the only way to secure a just and lasting peace, and an enduring friendship, is by respect for and compliance with, the Court’s final Judgment, whatever it may be.”
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
One thought on “Venezuela already decided how border controversy will be determined – Interim President tells ICJ”
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
The exiled Opposition Leader, Maria Machado had issue the “Freedom Manifesto” on the trail for freedom, free and fair elections & a democratic Venezuela!!! No militarized dictatorship!!! Delcy will have to go!!!