- 16 hours ago
Statements by Venezuela’s Attorney General in The Hague. teleSUR
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:02In my capacity as Solicitor General of Venezuela and as an international jurist,
00:09I will present the final legal observations on this matter.
00:15During the course of these oral hearings, you've heard Venezuela's historical truth,
00:21which demonstrates its position and its deep commitment to international law
00:27as the foundation of peaceful relations among all states.
00:34And it is precisely for these reasons that Venezuela has consistently and unequivocally
00:41maintained its position that the 1899 award is null and void.
00:49This was the reason why, during the decolonization period,
00:55Venezuela and the United Kingdom, once the evidence had come to light,
01:02put the issue of the 1899 award behind them
01:06and redefined their relationship in the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
01:17I applaud the statement by the Attorney General of Guyana regarding his country's deep commitment
01:23to international law.
01:27But I am compelled to recall that the Geneva Agreement is not merely a norm of international law,
01:34but rather the norm of international law that Venezuela and Guyana imposed upon themselves.
01:41Pacta sunt servanda.
01:44Mr. President, members of the court,
01:47I would like to refer to the 1966 Geneva Agreement
01:50as the sole binding instrument governing the territorial dispute over Guyana-Esequiba.
01:58As presented by Professors Mbenga and Zimmerman,
02:01Venezuela's position on the real issue or the subject matter of the dispute between Venezuela and Guyana
02:10is not the invalidity of the 1899 arbitral award.
02:14The real issue of the dispute is the obligation under the 1966 Geneva Agreement
02:21to seek a mutually satisfactory solution to the territorial dispute.
02:33Regrettably, Guyana has attempted to distort the subject matter of the dispute
02:38with the malicious absurdity of convincing the court to legitimise the 1899 award,
02:48a product of the unfortunate colonial past that our two countries endured in different ways.
02:58Affirming the validity or invalidity of the 1899 award
03:02would perpetuate a profoundly illicit and unlawful colonial outcome,
03:07which the parties to the Geneva Agreement
03:10superseded and set aside.
03:14This is a settled and resolved matter.
03:19In contrast,
03:21the 1966 Geneva Agreement
03:23novated
03:24the previous legal regime
03:26that the colonial power had imposed
03:28through structural coercion.
03:32By signing the Geneva Agreement,
03:34the parties replaced the fraudulent legal framework,
03:39which had been sought to establish
03:41or had been sought to be established
03:44by the 1897 treaty,
03:46the 1899 colonialist award
03:48and the 1905 demarcation agreement
03:50with a new framework,
03:52one in which the parties committed
03:55to seeking satisfactory solutions
03:58for the practical resolution
04:01of the territorial dispute.
04:03The Geneva Agreement
04:05is part of the decolonisation process.
04:08This process involves more
04:10than merely granting independence
04:12to occupied territories.
04:15It also entails
04:16redressing the injustices
04:19of territorial disposition,
04:21dispossession
04:21committed against sovereign states.
04:29I will now address
04:31Guyana's false allegation
04:33regarding Venezuela's alleged acquiescence
04:36and its purported theory of cure
04:39based on Venezuela's conduct
04:41following the issuance of the award.
04:45Professors Tuvna and Azaria
04:47have demonstrated
04:49that this argument
04:49is fundamentally flawed
04:51and lacks evidentiary basis.
04:56on the one hand,
04:58there is no legal principle
05:00in international law
05:02that allows
05:03the nullity of an arbitral award
05:07to be cured
05:08by the conduct of the parties.
05:15One cannot remedy
05:17what arose from illegality and fraud.
05:20In any case,
05:20Venezuela has always opposed
05:22such a principle,
05:22especially during
05:24the Vienna Conference
05:25on the Law of Treaties.
05:28The evidence gathered
05:29by Venezuela
05:30demonstrates
05:31that it never waived
05:33its right
05:34to invoke
05:35the invalidity
05:36of the award.
05:39This was unequivocally established
05:41in the Geneva Agreement.
05:44Furthermore,
05:46a state may only invoke
05:48the invalidity
05:49of the award
05:49when it possesses evidence
05:51to prove it.
05:53Venezuela only obtained
05:55such evidence
05:56following the publication
05:58of the Malay Provost Memorandum.
06:01Around that time,
06:03the British archives
06:05were partially opened
06:07and subsequent investigations
06:09were conducted,
06:10which enabled Venezuela
06:12to demonstrate
06:13the defects in the award.
06:22in this regard,
06:23Venezuela's conduct
06:24reflects the degree
06:26of seriousness
06:26and diligence
06:27expected of a state
06:28under international law
06:30with respect
06:32to challenging
06:34an arbitral award
06:35of the importance
06:45and magnitude
06:47of the fraudulent
06:481899 award.
06:51Moreover,
06:53the circumstances
06:54of the time
06:55confirmed
06:55that Venezuela
06:56was a victim
06:57of the United Kingdom's
06:59imperialist greed.
07:02I'm compelled
07:03to point out,
07:04Mr. President,
07:05members of the court,
07:06that Guyana
07:07maliciously seeks
07:09to deny
07:09the asymmetry
07:10of power
07:10that existed
07:11between Venezuela
07:12and the powers
07:13of the time.
07:14A country
07:15devastated by war
07:17was not in a position
07:19to confront
07:20the world's greatest
07:21naval and military power
07:23of that area
07:25in order to preserve
07:26its right
07:27to invalidate an award.
07:29The absurdity
07:31of Guyana's claim
07:32does not end there.
07:34Guyana asks the court
07:35to consider
07:36an even more
07:37irrational proposition
07:39as reasonable.
07:42Guyana argues
07:43that Venezuela,
07:45regardless of the circumstances
07:47of extreme military disparities
07:49in the early 20th century,
07:51was in a position to
07:52and was expected to
07:55challenge
07:56an arbitral award
07:57even without evidence
07:59to demonstrate
08:00the award's invalidity.
08:02And it was expected
08:04to do so
08:04knowing that it would have
08:07to be prepared
08:08to endure
08:09another war
08:10at the hands
08:11of its aggressor,
08:12a war
08:13that it would
08:14undoubtedly lose again.
08:17With the utmost respect,
08:19Mr. President,
08:20members of the court,
08:22Guyana's claim
08:23runs counter
08:24to justice,
08:25good faith,
08:27and defies
08:29all reason.
08:34Venezuela has made it clear
08:35that the real issue
08:36in what really matters
08:38in this dispute
08:39is the 1966
08:40Geneva Agreement.
08:41However,
08:42Mr. President,
08:43members of the court,
08:45I would like to raise
08:46a third point
08:47before presenting
08:48my final conclusions.
08:51As Professors Tams
08:53and Parchetti
08:53clearly explained,
08:54even if
08:56the dispute
08:59concerned the 1899 award,
09:02Guyana's assertion
09:03that the award
09:04is valid
09:05completely fails.
09:08Venezuela has clearly
09:09demonstrated
09:10with reliable evidence
09:12that the 1899 award
09:14is null and void
09:15and that Guyana's
09:16unilateral submission
09:17to the court
09:18lacks any basis.
09:20First,
09:22Venezuela has demonstrated
09:23that the 1897
09:25Treaty of Washington
09:32is invalid
09:33on grounds
09:35of error
09:36and fraud.
09:37Therefore,
09:39the 1899 award,
09:40which was based
09:42on this invalid treaty,
09:44is inevitably
09:45and consequently
09:46also invalid.
09:51Second,
09:52Venezuela has
09:53provided evidence
09:54including contemporary
09:55evidence
09:56showing that it
09:57was coerced
09:58into accepting
10:00the 1897 Treaty
10:01of Washington,
10:03which invalidates
10:04the treaty itself
10:05as well as
10:06the subsequent
10:071899 award.
10:10There is also
10:11contemporary evidence
10:13demonstrating
10:14that Venezuela
10:15was the victim
10:16of coercion
10:17and during
10:19having been threatened
10:20with the use
10:21use of force
10:21in the months
10:22immediately preceding
10:23the negotiations
10:24of the 1897 Treaty
10:26of Washington
10:26between Great Britain
10:27and the United States.
10:30Third,
10:31Venezuela's historical
10:32position
10:32has been
10:38that the 1899 award
10:40also suffered
10:41from multiple
10:42defects.
10:45Venezuela
10:45convincingly
10:46demonstrated
10:47with substantial
10:49evidence
10:50that the award
10:51is invalid
10:52primarily
10:53for two reasons.
10:56First,
10:57the tribunal
10:58did not state
10:59the grounds
10:59on which the decision
11:00was based.
11:01Second,
11:03the tribunal
11:04exceeded
11:05its authority.
11:07There are five
11:08instances
11:09of this abuse
11:10of power.
11:11Firstly,
11:12the tribunal
11:13failed to answer
11:14one of the questions
11:14posed to it
11:15in Article 3
11:16of the Washington
11:17Treaty.
11:18Secondly,
11:20the tribunal
11:21failed to apply
11:22the rules
11:23specified in Article 4.
11:25Thirdly,
11:26the tribunal
11:27acted
11:27in a manner
11:28inconsistent
11:29with the scope
11:30of its powers
11:31by deciding
11:33on matters
11:34outside its jurisdiction.
11:36Fourthly,
11:38the tribunal
11:39did not act
11:40impartially
11:41as required
11:41under Article 5
11:44Fifthly,
11:45the tribunal
11:46failed to
11:47fulfil its duty
11:48to render
11:49a decision
11:50based on the law.
11:52Mr. President,
11:54members of the court,
11:55I have two
11:56concluding remarks.
11:58First,
12:00I will comment
12:01on the documentary
12:02record.
12:04Despite the obstacles
12:05and difficulties
12:06created by
12:07the United Kingdom
12:09to prevent
12:10Venezuela
12:10from accessing
12:12the original sources,
12:14we have been able
12:15to compile
12:16and present
12:17hundreds of documents.
12:21This documentary
12:22evidence
12:22has been compiled
12:23and analysed
12:24over many years
12:25by Venezuelan
12:27and British experts
12:28who examined
12:30the archives
12:31of the United Kingdom
12:32as well as
12:33Venezuela's
12:33national archives
12:34in order to
12:35investigate
12:36the circumstances
12:37surrounding
12:38the null
12:39and void award
12:40of 1899.
12:42This process
12:43has been a source
12:45of deep sadness
12:47as it has laid
12:48bare in great detail
12:50and reignited
12:52the injustice
12:53that our country
12:54has had to endure
12:56for more than
12:57120 years
12:58due to the unjust
13:00and invalid
13:01Treaty of Washington
13:02of 1897
13:03and the unjust
13:05and invalid
13:06arbitral award
13:07of 1899
13:08both products
13:10of the colonial
13:11era
13:12that our country
13:14had hoped
13:15and strived
13:16to leave behind.
13:18Venezuela
13:18is also aware
13:19of the probable
13:20existence
13:20of other
13:21relevant documents.
13:24With regard
13:25to such documentation
13:26the conduct
13:27of the United Kingdom
13:28and Guyana
13:30is inexcusable.
13:34Archival documents
13:35from April 1970
13:37to which access
13:38has only recently
13:39been granted
13:40confirm that
13:42the United Kingdom
13:43actively cooperated
13:44with Guyana
13:45in the preparation
13:46of this case.
13:48The relevant file
13:50held at the
13:51British National Archives
13:52under reference
13:53number
13:54FCO
13:5663
13:57stroke
13:58477
13:59contains documents
14:01demonstrating
14:02cooperation
14:03between the
14:04government
14:04of the United Kingdom
14:05and Guyana's
14:08legal advisors
14:09regarding the
14:10territorial dispute
14:11with Venezuela.
14:12These documents
14:14revealed that
14:15British authorities
14:19acknowledged
14:20they were in
14:21possession of
14:22archival material
14:23that might not
14:24be available
14:24elsewhere.
14:26Consequently
14:27the United Kingdom
14:29provided Guyana's
14:31legal advisors
14:32with access
14:34to restricted
14:35documents
14:36including
14:38confidential
14:38material
14:39while denying
14:42Venezuela
14:42equivalent access.
14:45This constitutes
14:46a serious violation
14:48of the principle
14:49of equality
14:50of arms.
14:52But there's more.
14:55The United Kingdom's
14:56history of
14:57selectively destroying
14:58archives
14:59in the context
15:00of the decolonization
15:01process is also
15:03confirmed by the
15:04documents identified
15:04by reference numbers
15:06FCO 141
15:10stroke
15:1019928
15:12and
15:13FCO 63
15:16stroke
15:16476.
15:18This must not be
15:20ignored.
15:21In an effort to
15:23remedy this
15:24asymmetry
15:24on April 25th
15:272023
15:27Venezuela
15:29transmitted a
15:30note
15:30verbal
15:31expressing its
15:32concern regarding
15:33Guyana's
15:34exclusive access
15:35to documents
15:36related to the
15:38dispute.
15:40In that note
15:41Venezuela
15:42recalled the
15:43existence
15:43of a set of
15:44documents
15:45communicated by
15:47the United
15:47Kingdom to
15:48Guyana
15:49without
15:50notification
15:51or transmission
15:53to Venezuela
15:54or the
15:55United Nations
15:56as required
15:57by the
15:57Geneva
15:58agreement.
16:01Venezuela
16:01made a
16:02specific request
16:03that Guyana
16:05share a
16:06detailed list
16:07of the documents
16:08received
16:08as well as
16:10any other
16:10documents obtained
16:11exclusively
16:12and without
16:14Venezuela's
16:15knowledge.
16:17Guyana's
16:18response
16:19of June
16:1922nd
16:202023
16:21categorically
16:23rejected any
16:24obligation to
16:24provide such
16:25documentation.
16:28I now turn to
16:30my second
16:30observation.
16:32Throughout
16:32these hearings
16:33Guyana's
16:34lawyers have
16:35portrayed
16:36Venezuela's
16:36position as
16:38a myth
16:39or a
16:40fiction.
16:42They also
16:43attempted to
16:44counter the
16:44weight of
16:45Venezuela's
16:46arguments
16:52and
16:54with shameful
16:56personal
16:56attacks
16:57and
16:58disparagements
16:58against
16:59Venezuela's
17:00legal team.
17:04I will not
17:05go into
17:06Guyana's
17:07tactics which
17:08are
17:08inelegant,
17:10inappropriate
17:10and lack
17:12the dignity
17:12expected of
17:13this type of
17:13proceeding,
17:14especially from
17:16a state that
17:16claims to
17:17respect
17:17international
17:18law.
17:21These tactics
17:22reveal that
17:23Venezuela's
17:23official position,
17:24its arguments,
17:26and the
17:26evidence supporting
17:28them can only
17:29be met by
17:30Guyana with
17:31insults,
17:32offenses.
17:35Any reasonable
17:37observer would
17:38see through these
17:39tactics and
17:40draw the
17:41appropriate
17:41conclusions from
17:42them.
17:42Venezuela is
17:44very proud of
17:46its legal
17:47team and
17:49is enormously
17:50grateful to
17:51them for their
17:52dedication and
17:53professionalism.
17:55Mr.
17:56President,
17:57members of
17:59the court,
17:59it was the
18:00existence of two
18:01contradictory
18:01positions regarding
18:02the validity of
18:03the 1899
18:04award that
18:05led in
18:051966 to
18:07the Geneva
18:07Agreement.
18:09The agreement
18:10was not
18:11concluded because
18:12one party was
18:13right and the
18:15other was living
18:15in a fantasy.
18:17It was
18:17concluded
18:18because both
18:20parties recognized
18:21that their
18:23disagreement could
18:23not be
18:24resolved by
18:25determining who
18:26was right
18:27about the
18:27past, but
18:29only by
18:31agreeing on
18:32a way
18:33forward.
18:35Venezuela is
18:36willing to
18:37resolve the
18:37dispute over
18:38the territorial
18:38border with
18:39Guyana, but
18:41such a solution
18:42must be
18:44achieved in
18:45accordance with
18:46the only
18:47valid legal
18:48framework
18:49governing the
18:50dispute,
18:51the 1966
18:52Geneva
18:53agreement and
18:55its mandate to
18:56reach a
18:57mutually
18:58satisfactory
18:58solution.
19:00Mr.
19:01President,
19:02members of the
19:02court,
19:05this concludes
19:07my statement.
19:08I thank you very
19:09much for your kind
19:09attention and I
19:10respectfully request
19:11that you grant the
19:11floor to the
19:12president of the
19:13Bolivarian Republic of
19:14Venezuela.
19:15It's a
Comments