- 9 hours ago
Venezuela reaffirms its sovereignty over the Guayana Esequiba during the hearing at the International Court of Justice. teleSUR
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:04We are going live to The Hague with Acting President of Venezuela, Dess Rodriguez, to
00:08listen to her statement in the International Law of Justice.
00:10Let's listen.
00:18In my capacity as Solicitor General of Venezuela and as an international jurist, I will present
00:25the final legal observations on this matter.
00:31During the course of these oral hearings, you have heard Venezuela's historical truth,
00:36which demonstrates its position and its deep commitment to international law as the foundation
00:43of peaceful relations among all states.
00:49And it is precisely for these reasons that Venezuela has consistently and unequivocally
00:56maintained its position that the 1899 award is null and void.
01:05This was the reason why, during the decolonization period, Venezuela and the United Kingdom, once
01:15the evidence had come to light, put the issue of the 1899 award behind them and redefined their
01:23relationship in the 1966 Geneva agreement.
01:32I applaud the statement by the Attorney General of Guyana regarding his country's deep commitment
01:38agreement to international law.
01:42But I am compelled to recall that the Geneva agreement is not merely a norm of international
01:47law, but rather the norm of international law that Venezuela and Guyana imposed upon themselves.
01:56Pacta sunt servanda.
01:58Mr. President, members of the court, I would like to refer to the 1966 Geneva agreement as
02:06the sole binding instrument governing the territorial dispute over Guyana-Esequiba.
02:13As presented by Professors Mbenga and Zimmerman, Venezuela's position on the real issue or the
02:21subject matter of the dispute between Venezuela and Guyana is not the invalidity of the 1899
02:28arbitral award.
02:29The real issue of the dispute is the obligation under the 1966 Geneva agreement to seek a mutually
02:38satisfactory solution to the territorial dispute.
02:48regrettably, Guyana has attempted to distort the subject matter of the dispute with the malicious
02:54absurdity of convincing the court to legitimize the 1899 award, a product of the unfortunate colonial
03:05past that our two countries endured in different ways.
03:13affirming the validity or invalidity of the 1899 award would perpetuate a profoundly illicit and
03:20unlawful colonial outcome, which the parties, the Geneva agreement, superseded and set aside.
03:29This is a settled and resolved matter.
03:34In contrast, the 1966 Geneva agreement novated the previous legal regime that the colonial power
03:43had imposed through structural coercion.
03:47By signing the Geneva agreement, the parties replaced the fraudulent legal framework, which had been sought to
03:58be established by the 1897 treaty, the 1899 colonialist award, and the 1905 demarcation agreement with a new framework.
04:07One in which the parties committed to seeking satisfactory solutions to the practical, for the practical resolution of the territorial
04:17dispute.
04:17The Geneva agreement is part of the decolonization process.
04:22The Geneva agreement is part of the decolonization process.
04:23This process involves more than merely granting independence to occupied territories.
04:29It also entails redressing the injustices of territorial disposition, dispossession,
04:37committed against sovereign states.
04:41Mr. President, members of the court.
04:45I will now address Guyana's false allegation regarding Venezuela's alleged acquiescence and its purported theory of cure based on Venezuela's
04:55conduct.
04:56Following the issuance of the award.
05:00Professors Tuvna and Azaria have demonstrated that this argument is fundamentally flawed and lacks evidentiary basis.
05:11On the one hand, there is no legal principle in international law that allows the nullity of an arbitral award
05:22to be cured by the conduct of the parties.
05:30One cannot remedy what arose from illegality and fraud.
05:35In any case, Venezuela has always opposed such a principle, especially during the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties.
05:43The evidence gathered by Venezuela demonstrates that it never waived its right to invoke the invalidity of the award.
05:54This was unequivocally established in the Geneva agreement.
06:00Furthermore, a state may only invoke the invalidity of the award when it possesses evidence to prove it.
06:08Venezuela only obtained such evidence following the publication of the Malay Provost Memorandum.
06:15Around that time, the British archives were partially opened and subsequent investigations were conducted, which enabled Venezuela to demonstrate the
06:28defect in the award.
06:31In this regard, Venezuela's conduct reflects the degree of seriousness and diligence expected of a state under international law with
06:41respect to challenging an arbitral award of the importance and magnitude of the fraudulent 1899 award.
06:52Moreover, the circumstances of the time confirmed that Venezuela was a victim of the United Kingdom's imperialist greed.
07:03I am compelled to point out, Mr. President, members of the court, that Guyana maliciously seeks to deny the asymmetry
07:11of power that existed between Venezuela and the powers of the time.
07:15A country devastated by war was not in a position to confront the world's greatest naval and military power of
07:25that area in order to preserve its right to invalidate an award.
07:29The absurdity of Guyana's claim does not end there.
07:34Guyana asks the court to consider an even more irrational proposition as reasonable.
07:42Guyana argues that Venezuela, regardless of the circumstances of extreme military disparities in the early 20th century, was in a
07:52position to and was expected to challenge an arbitral award.
07:58Even without evidence to demonstrate the award's invalidity and it was expected to do so, knowing that it would have
08:06that it would have to be prepared to endure another war at the hands of its aggressor.
08:13However, a war that it would undoubtedly lose again.
08:18With the utmost respect, Mr. President, members of the court, Guyana's claim runs counter to justice, good faith and defies
08:29all reason.
08:34Venezuela has made it clear that the real issue in what really matters in this dispute is the 1966 Geneva
08:41agreement.
08:42However, Mr. President, members of the court, I would like to raise a third point before presenting my final conclusions.
08:51As Professors Tams and Parchetti clearly explained, even if the dispute concerned the 1899 award, Guyana's assertion that the award
09:04is valid completely fails.
09:08Venezuela has clearly demonstrated, with reliable evidence, that the 1899 award is null and void and that Guyana's unilateral submission
09:18to the court lacks any basis.
09:20First, Venezuela has demonstrated that the 1897 Treaty of Washington is invalid on grounds of error and fraud.
09:32Therefore, the 1899 award, which was based on this invalid treaty, is inevitably and consequently also invalid.
09:46Second, Venezuela has provided evidence, including contemporary evidence, showing that it was coerced into accepting the 1897 Treaty of Washington,
09:56which invalidates the treaty itself, as well as the subsequent 1899 award.
10:05There is also contemporary evidence demonstrating that Venezuela was the victim of coercion and during having been threatened with the
10:15use of force in the months immediately preceding the negotiations of the 1897 Treaty of Washington between Great Britain and
10:22the United States.
10:25Third, Venezuela's historical position has been that the 1899 award also suffered from multiple defects.
10:32First, Venezuela convincingly demonstrated, with substantial evidence, that the award is invalid primarily for two reasons.
10:45First, the tribunal did not state the grounds on which the decision was based.
10:50Second, the tribunal exceeded its authority.
10:56There are five instances of this abuse of power.
10:59Firstly, the tribunal failed to answer one of the questions posed to it in Article 3 of the Washington Treaty.
11:07Secondly, the tribunal failed to apply the rules specified in Article 4.
11:14Thirdly, the tribunal acted in a manner inconsistent with the scope of its powers by deciding on matters outside its
11:24jurisdiction.
11:26Fourthly, the tribunal did not act impartially as required under Article 5.
11:33Fifthly, the tribunal failed to fulfil its duty to render a decision based on the law.
11:41Mr. President, members of the court, I have two concluding remarks.
11:49First, I will comment on the documentary record.
11:53First, the tribunal has been explained in this case, by the 소f of the
11:58Paso of the United Kingdom Theon.
11:59Second, the tribunal did not act in this case.
11:59Fourthly, the tribunal did not act in this case.
12:00The tribunal did not act in this case in the comfort zone.
12:01I have one very, very, very popular.
12:03First, I have one more country based on this case.
12:05And the tribunal, I have one more country based on this case, and I have one more country based on
12:22this.
12:22Venezuela's National Archives in order to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Null and Void Award of 1899.
12:31This process has been a source of deep sadness, as it has laid bare in great detail and reignited the
12:41injustice that our country has had to endure for more than 120 years,
12:47due to the Unjust and Invalid Treaty of Washington of 1897 and the Unjust and Invalid Arbitral Award of 1899,
12:58both products of the colonial era that our country had hoped and strived to leave behind.
13:07Venezuela is also aware of the probable existence of other relevant documents.
13:13With regard to such documentation, the conduct of the United Kingdom and Guyana is inexcusable.
13:23Archival documents from April 1970, to which access has only recently been granted,
13:30confirm that the United Kingdom actively cooperated with Guyana in the preparation of this case.
13:37The relevant file, held at the British National Archives under reference number FCO 63-477,
13:49contains documents demonstrating cooperation between the government of the United Kingdom
13:55and Guyana's legal advisers regarding the territorial dispute with Venezuela.
14:01These documents revealed that British authorities acknowledged they were in possession of archival material
14:12that might not be available elsewhere.
14:15Consequently, the United Kingdom provided Guyana's legal advisers with access to restricted documents,
14:25including confidential material, while denying Venezuela equivalent access.
14:34This constitutes a serious violation of the principle of equality of arms.
14:41But there is more.
14:44The United Kingdom's history of selectively destroying archives in the context of the decolonization process
14:51is also confirmed by the documents identified by reference numbers FCO 141-19928 and FCO 63-476.
15:07This must not be ignored.
15:11In an effort to remedy this asymmetry, on April 25, 2023, Venezuela transmitted a note verbal expressing its concern
15:22regarding Guyana's exclusive access to documents related to the dispute.
15:29In that note, Venezuela recalled the existence of a set of documents communicated by the United Kingdom to Guyana without
15:40notification or transmission
15:42to Venezuela or the United Nations, as required by the Geneva Agreement.
15:50Venezuela made a specific request that Guyana share a detailed list of the documents received,
15:58as well as any other documents obtained exclusively and without Venezuela's knowledge.
16:07Guyana's response of June 22, 2023, categorically rejected any obligation to provide such documentation.
16:17I now turn to my second observation.
16:21Throughout these hearings, Guyana's lawyers have portrayed Venezuela's position as a myth or a fiction.
16:31They also attempted to counter the weight of Venezuela's arguments and historical position
16:37with shameful personal attacks and disparagements against Venezuela's legal team.
16:47I will not go into Guyana's tactics, which are inelegant, inappropriate, and lack the dignity expected of this type of
16:56proceeding,
16:57especially from a state that claims to respect international law.
17:03These tactics reveal that Venezuela's official position, its arguments, and the evidence supporting them
17:11can only be met by Guyana with insults, offences.
17:18Any reasonable observer would see through these tactics and draw the appropriate conclusions from them.
17:25Venezuela is very proud of its legal team and is enormously grateful to them for their dedication and professionalism.
17:38Mr. President, members of the court,
17:42it was the existence of two contradictory positions regarding the validity of the 1899 award
17:47that led, in 1966, to the Geneva Agreement.
17:51The agreement was not concluded because one party was right and the other was living in a fantasy.
18:00It was concluded because both parties recognized that their disagreement could not be resolved
18:07by determining who was right about the past, but only by agreeing on a way forward.
18:16Venezuela is willing to resolve the dispute over the territorial border with Guyana,
18:22but such a solution must be achieved in accordance with the only valid legal framework governing the dispute,
18:32the 1966 Geneva Agreement,
18:36and its mandate to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.
18:42Mr. President, members of the court,
18:46this concludes my statement.
18:49I thank you very much for your kind attention,
18:51and I respectfully request that you grant the floor to the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
18:56So take the stand.
18:58Mr. Attorney General, I now invite the Acting President of Venezuela,
19:03Excellency Ms. Delcey Rodriguez, to address the court.
19:07Your Excellency, you have the floor.
19:20Mr. President,
19:22distinguished members of the court,
19:26all those present at this hearing,
19:29I come before this court to bring you the voice of a people
19:33who deeply cherish justice, peace, and international law.
19:41The people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
19:46On the 3rd of December, 2023,
19:50our people turned out in large numbers at the polls
19:53and gave us a series of clear and unequivocal mandates.
19:59Allow me to highlight the following.
20:02Firstly, the mandate to maintain the historical position
20:07of not submitting existential matters
20:10such as independence and territorial integrity to judicial mechanisms.
20:16Secondly, the mandate to uphold the Geneva Agreement
20:21as a legal instrument for resolving the territorial dispute over Guayana Ezequiva.
20:28Thirdly, to defend by all peaceful means in line with international law
20:37the territory of Guayana Ezequiva.
20:40True to these mandates this afternoon.
20:43Mr. President, members of the court,
20:47Venezuela's historical position of not submitting matters
20:51related to its vital interests to judicial dispute resolution mechanisms
20:57is not an act of defiance nor of disregard of the court as an institution.
21:07Venezuela is a fervent promoter and defender of international law.
21:12For this reason, it respects the International Court of Justice
21:17as the main judicial body of the United Nations.
21:22However, this is a matter of defending one of the essential attributes of our state,
21:28namely its sovereignty.
21:31Venezuela has never consented to submitting the territorial controversy
21:37over Guayana Ezequiva to the jurisdiction of this court.
21:42In no way does Article 4 of the Geneva Agreement
21:46constitute a compromissory clause.
21:50With this in mind, since 2018,
21:54Venezuela has filed a number of submissions
21:57and has intervened in several hearings before this court
22:01with a double purpose.
22:03Firstly, to attempt to uphold international law
22:08in the face of this anti-legal absurdity promoted by Guayana.
22:14Secondly, to demonstrate to the world
22:17the truth regarding the rights that since its inception
22:21have belonged to Venezuela
22:23with regard to the territory of Guayana Ezequiva.
22:25This does not imply in any way
22:29recognition of the court's jurisdiction
22:31in the territorial controversy.
22:36So, Mr. President, members of the court,
22:41the territorial controversy over Guayana Ezequiva
22:44is governed by a legally binding international treaty
22:50that must be complied with by the parties in good faith.
22:54This instrument is none other than the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
23:00It is a unique treaty
23:02for which it would be hard to find a parallel
23:05in decolonization practice.
23:08It seeks to resolve a colonial injustice
23:12through a mutually acceptable settlement.
23:16A negotiated solution is, therefore,
23:20an inevitable and an indispensable condition of the controversy.
23:26The Geneva Agreement buries
23:29and moves beyond the discussion
23:32over the validity or the invalidity of the 1899 award.
23:37The agreement recognizes that the boundary dispute
23:40could not be resolved in those terms
23:43and directs it towards a process
23:46aimed at achieving a practical, satisfactory
23:49and mutually acceptable outcome.
23:51This framework cannot be circumvented or reformulated
23:57nor replaced through unilateral recourse
24:01to judicial resolution.
24:04It is law between the parties.
24:07The preparatory work on the Geneva Agreement,
24:11its title, its preamble, its articles,
24:15as well as the subsequent practice of the parties,
24:18demonstrate that resolving the legal issue
24:23of the validity or invalidity of the award
24:25was never on the horizon.
24:28It was not ever a legal controversy.
24:32The object, the nature and the purpose
24:34have always been to resolve
24:37the territorial controversy of the Guayana Seguiva
24:39through political, peaceful and diplomatic negotiation.
24:45The dispute controversy does not concern
24:49the confirmation nor the invalidation of an award.
24:52It concerns the resolution of a territorial dispute
24:57that both parties expressly recognized
25:00as unresolved in 1966
25:02and for which they specifically agreed
25:06upon a method of resolution
25:09for that method is negotiation, not imposition.
25:13There are no winners or losers.
25:16This negotiation process
25:19was neither exhausted
25:21nor was it abandoned by Venezuela.
25:24It was undermined by Guayana's conduct.
25:27At a time when the mechanisms provided for
25:30in the Geneva Agreement remained fully in force,
25:33Guayana unilaterally chose
25:35to shift the controversy
25:38from the realm of negotiation
25:39to that of judicial resolution
25:42in open violation
25:43of the agreed-upon legal framework.
25:46That shift was not innocent.
25:48It coincided with an oil find in 2015
25:55described as world-renowned.
25:57Guayana, at that point, ceased to act in good faith
26:02and harbored a silent intention
26:06to evade compliance with the Geneva Agreement.
26:11From that moment on,
26:13Guayana abandoned the logic
26:16of a mutually acceptable solution
26:18and it adopted an unlawful strategy
26:21of judicialization
26:22aimed at obtaining through this court
26:25and without Venezuela's consent
26:27what it was not able to achieve
26:29under the Geneva Agreement,
26:31i.e. validation of a fraudulent award.
26:34It was an all-or-nothing approach.
26:39Negotiation was replaced by litigation,
26:42good offices by pressure
26:45and political consensus
26:47by a unilateral action
26:49that perpetuates and exacerbates the dispute.
26:54Venezuela cannot accept this shift
26:59driven by Guayana
27:01redefining the nature of the controversy
27:03or the manner in which it should be resolved,
27:06nor can it support the use of the court
27:10as an instrument to consolidate that change
27:14in violation of the Geneva Agreement
27:17and of international law.
27:23Mr. President,
27:25this is not a criticism
27:27of the judicial function.
27:30On the contrary,
27:31it is a defense of its scope.
27:35This court was not created
27:38to supplant the will of states,
27:41but to act within the limits
27:44defined by that will.
27:46And those limits, in this case,
27:50are clearly established
27:51in the Geneva Agreement.
27:55Let's be clear.
27:57Venezuela will not renounce its history
28:00nor its legitimate rights,
28:03rights expressly recognized
28:05and preserved in the Geneva Agreement,
28:07simply because Guayana
28:09now seeks unilaterally
28:12and opportunistically
28:13to redefine the controversy.
28:16For us,
28:17the Guayana Esequiba
28:19is not just about mere economic
28:22and commercial interests.
28:23It is part of our
28:25inalienable historical legacy.
28:28Guayana is evading its obligations.
28:31It is seeking to revive a debate
28:35over the validity
28:36or the invalidity of the award.
28:38And through this manipulation,
28:40the agreement itself,
28:42the agreement itself,
28:44the Port of Spain Protocol,
28:46and decades of bilateral negotiations,
28:49including those conducted
28:51under the good offices
28:53of several UN Secretaries General,
28:55are being disregarded.
28:58And this is not an oversight.
29:01It is a clear violation
29:03of the 1966 agreement,
29:04which does not stand up
29:07to rigorous scrutiny.
29:09The narrative presented
29:10belongs to a different account,
29:13one that is divorced
29:15from historical and legal precedent.
29:17It invites the court,
29:19in bad faith,
29:20to set aside more than a century
29:23of state practice
29:24in favor of a doctored version
29:27of reality.
29:30Mr. President,
29:31members of the court,
29:33as part of its defense
29:35of the truth,
29:36Venezuela has made available
29:38to this court
29:40and, henceforth,
29:42to the world,
29:43abundant evidence
29:44confirming its historical rights
29:47over Guayana Ezequiva,
29:49as well as the party's decision
29:52to resolve the territorial dispute
29:55through the Geneva Agreement.
29:57Despite the British blockade
30:00of evidentiary sources
30:02and despite the destruction
30:04of documents,
30:05Venezuela has compiled
30:07and submitted
30:09a comprehensive
30:10and coherent body
30:12of documentation
30:12consisting of more than
30:133,000 pages of evidence
30:15distributed across
30:17a number of volumes.
30:18The body of evidence
30:21presented to the court
30:23includes international treaties
30:26and agreements.
30:28It includes colonial
30:29and historical documents,
30:31extensive diplomatic correspondence,
30:35negotiation records,
30:37official statements,
30:40United Nations documents,
30:41as well as a substantial
30:45collection of maps.
30:48Taken as a whole,
30:50this evidence confirms
30:51the nullity
30:52of the 1899
30:54arbitral award.
30:56It also unequivocally
30:58reflects
30:59long-standing practice
31:01and mutual recognition
31:03by Guayana
31:05and Venezuela
31:05of the existence
31:07of a territorial dispute
31:09and the need
31:11to resolve it
31:12through direct negotiations
31:13aimed at reaching
31:15a mutually
31:16satisfactory solution
31:19as established in
31:21and required
31:22by the 1966
31:24Geneva Agreement.
31:26The evidence
31:27is irrefutable.
31:30Guayana-Esequiba
31:31has been part
31:33of Venezuela's territory
31:34since the country's
31:35inception
31:36In 1777,
31:39the Spanish crown
31:40created the
31:42Captaincy General
31:43of Venezuela,
31:45comprising,
31:46among others,
31:47the province
31:48of Guayana.
31:50This administrative
31:52unit
31:52is the
31:53territorial
31:54origin
31:55of what
31:56later
31:57became
31:57the Republic
31:58of Venezuela,
31:59which arose
32:00from its
32:02Declaration of Independence
32:03since 1811
32:04Constitution.
32:06Since then,
32:08every
32:09constitution
32:09of the Republic
32:10of Venezuela
32:11has reflected
32:12the fact
32:12that Guayana-Esequiba
32:13is part
32:13of Venezuela's
32:15territory.
32:16In 1825,
32:19the United Kingdom
32:20recognized
32:21Colombia.
32:23Its eastern
32:24border
32:24was the territory
32:26of Venezuela's
32:27Guayana-Esequiba.
32:28The United Kingdom
32:29never held
32:30any title
32:31to the territory
32:32of Guayana-Esequiba.
32:34Its successor
32:35state did not
32:36hold it either,
32:37nor does it
32:38hold it now,
32:39though it seeks
32:40to artificially
32:41forge such a title
32:42through this
32:42misleading proceedings.
32:45Beginning in 1840,
32:47the British Crown,
32:49aware then
32:50of the immense
32:51gold reserves
32:52in the territory,
32:54designed a strategy
32:55to plunder it.
32:57To this end,
32:59it enlisted
33:00a German adventurer
33:02to unilaterally
33:03draw an arbitrary
33:04line within
33:06Venezuelan territory,
33:07the so-called
33:07Schomburg line,
33:10which has never
33:10been validated
33:12nor recognized
33:13by Venezuela.
33:15Later,
33:16the United Kingdom
33:17attempted to
33:18consolidate
33:19this dispossession
33:20through a sham arbitration,
33:22which concluded
33:23with the fraudulent
33:23and rigged award
33:24of 1899.
33:25Today,
33:27there is an attempt
33:28to validate
33:29that fraud
33:30through this
33:31biased process
33:32riddled with
33:33legal inconsistencies.
33:35There are
33:36even those
33:37who have dared
33:38to publicly
33:39predict
33:40the outcome
33:41of these proceedings.
33:42The truth
33:43of the award
33:44and its deceptive
33:46nature
33:46highlight
33:47Guyana's intention
33:49and that
33:49of those
33:50who pushed it
33:51towards this
33:52reckless action
33:53to tarnish
33:54and to erode
33:56the prestige
33:56of this court.
33:59How can they
34:00expect
34:01this court
34:02to stain
34:03its own history
34:04with a ruling
34:05that revives,
34:07validates,
34:08legitimizes
34:08such a case
34:09of colonial
34:10judicial fraud?
34:11Mr. President,
34:13distinguished members
34:14of the court,
34:15the negotiating
34:15process carried
34:16out by the parties
34:18following the signing
34:20of the Geneva agreement
34:21demonstrates
34:22that there are
34:23various mechanisms
34:24available to
34:25definitively resolve
34:26the territorial dispute.
34:28All are based
34:30on political dialogue
34:31and direct negotiation
34:32between the parties,
34:35both in the
34:37Joint Commission talks
34:38and in the
34:39good offices process,
34:41both parties
34:43put forward
34:44creative proposals
34:46aimed at reaching
34:47a practical,
34:49satisfactory
34:50and mutually
34:51acceptable
34:52settlement.
34:54In fact,
34:55the former
34:55Prime Minister
34:56of Guyana himself,
34:57Forbes Burnham,
34:58signatory to
34:59the Geneva agreement,
35:01proposed signing
35:02a new agreement
35:03that would settle
35:04the border issue
35:05linked to
35:06to the construction
35:07of a hydroelectric
35:08project in the
35:10upper
35:12Masaruni region.
35:13It should be
35:15noted that
35:16every step,
35:18every mechanism
35:19throughout this
35:20whole process
35:21was taken,
35:23was adopted
35:23with the prior
35:25and express consent
35:26of both parties
35:27to the Geneva agreement.
35:28regrettably,
35:30the UN
35:31Secretary-General
35:33abandoned
35:34this
35:35practice,
35:36this repeated
35:37practice,
35:37which had been
35:38followed for over
35:3950 years,
35:40yielding to
35:41strong and
35:41intense pressure
35:42from lobbyists
35:43hired by
35:44the Co-operative
35:45Republic of
35:46Guyana,
35:48driven by
35:49powerful energy
35:50interests,
35:52as we can see
35:54from the
35:54confessions of
35:55the former
35:56Guyanese
35:56Minister Raphael
35:57Trotman.
35:58This led to
36:00a dangerous
36:01exacerbation
36:02of the
36:03controversy
36:03between the
36:04parties.
36:07President,
36:09distinguished
36:09members of
36:10the Court,
36:13the global
36:14energy landscape
36:16points to
36:17high demand
36:17for hydrocarbons
36:18in the short
36:19and in the
36:19medium term,
36:20driven,
36:21amongst other
36:22factors,
36:23by a boom
36:25in new
36:25technology.
36:26As you know,
36:28Venezuela has
36:29the world's
36:30largest reserves
36:31of oil on
36:33the planet,
36:33and it's
36:33considered a
36:34strategic target
36:35by major
36:36powers.
36:36At the
36:37heart of
36:38the current
36:40development of
36:41this territorial
36:42dispute lies
36:43the region's
36:44hydrocarbon
36:45wealth,
36:46which has
36:46sparked the
36:47interest of
36:48major consumers
36:50and transnational
36:51oil companies
36:51that see the
36:53resources available
36:54in the area
36:55as a major
36:56opportunity.
36:57These vital
36:58interests have
36:59further complicated
37:01this historical
37:03dispute.
37:05We have no doubt
37:07that only a
37:08practical,
37:09satisfactory,
37:10and mutually
37:11acceptable settlement
37:11can create the
37:13conditions of
37:14stability and trust
37:16required for both
37:19countries, as well
37:20as the interests
37:21of third parties
37:22present to fully
37:26capitalise on the
37:27potential of this
37:28territory for the
37:28benefit of
37:30sustainable economic
37:33development and the
37:35social well-being of the
37:36peoples of the region.
37:37Mr.
37:38President, the
37:40dichotomous approach
37:42of validity or
37:43invalidity of the
37:45award put forward by
37:46Guyana in its
37:47unilateral application
37:48is profoundly
37:50pernicious and
37:52futile.
37:53No judgment by this
37:55court on the
37:56territorial controversy
37:58will provide a
37:59definitive solution
38:00acceptable to both
38:02parties.
38:02On the contrary,
38:03it will exacerbate the
38:05differences between
38:07the parties and will
38:08lead the parties to
38:09entrench themselves in
38:11their respective
38:12positions,
38:12distancing them from
38:13the practical,
38:14satisfactory, and
38:15mutually acceptable
38:16settlement to which
38:16they committed in
38:181966 by signing the
38:20Geneva Agreement.
38:22Such a judgment may
38:24conclude the case,
38:26but it will not put an
38:28end to the
38:29territorial dispute
38:30over the Guayana
38:30Sequiva as conceived
38:32and as agreed upon by
38:33Venezuela, the
38:35United Kingdom and
38:36Guyana.
38:38At best, it would
38:40lead to a return to
38:41the same impasse that
38:43the Geneva Agreement
38:44overcame.
38:46Proof of this can be
38:49found in Guyana's
38:50unprecedented and
38:51extravagant submissions
38:52before this court,
38:53which reflect an
38:55inexcusable spirit of
38:58superiority.
39:00Just as colonial
39:02empires erased the
39:04history of the peoples
39:05they sought to
39:06dominate, this court is
39:08being asked to order
39:09the destruction of maps,
39:10to prohibit the
39:11teaching of history, to
39:13eliminate symbols, to
39:14tear Guayana Sequiva from
39:15the hearts of
39:15Venezuelans.
39:16The aim is to erase the
39:18memory of a people in
39:19order to nullify their
39:20future.
39:21Annihilating history will
39:23never, never legitimize
39:26dispossession.
39:27The truth will always
39:29prevail.
39:30Mr.
39:31President, this court was
39:34created to resolve
39:36conflicts, not to
39:37encourage conflicts.
39:39Only a political and
39:40negotiated solution to a
39:42territorial dispute can lay a
39:43solid and stable
39:47foundation for good
39:49neighbourliness, cooperation,
39:50shared economic development
39:52and the promotion of
39:55secure investment in the
39:56region.
39:57Venezuela will never
40:00endorse a violation of the
40:02Geneva agreement and
40:03international law.
40:05To validate a ruling that
40:07seeks to disregard a legal
40:10instrument that is in force
40:11and that has been duly
40:12deposited with the United
40:14Nations would run counter to
40:16the international legal
40:17order.
40:18Even if the court were to
40:21declare the award invalid,
40:25Venezuela would be unable to
40:26comply with such a ruling as
40:28it would also be nullifying the
40:30Geneva agreement and
40:32international law.
40:33It follows very clearly from
40:35this that there is no legal
40:37way of recognizing a decision
40:39resulting from this process,
40:42whatever that may be.
40:45President, members of the
40:46court, this is not an act of
40:48disrespect towards this
40:51esteemed court.
40:52It is an act of unwavering
40:54defense of Venezuela's rights,
40:56of international law and of
40:58the integrity of this court as
41:00the main judicial organ of the
41:01United Nations.
41:03My presence before this court
41:06demonstrates not only the
41:08importance that the territory of
41:10Guayaanisikiba holds for us as
41:11Venezuelans, it is also
41:14clear evidence of the respect we
41:16have for the court as an
41:18institution.
41:19Mr. President, Venezuela is
41:23ready and prepared to achieve
41:25the noble and peaceful purpose of
41:28the Geneva agreement, to reach by
41:31all means at its disposal a
41:33practical, satisfactory and
41:35mutually acceptable solution for
41:36the parties.
41:37In today's turbulent world, we have
41:42reached a historic moment where we
41:44can demonstrate that dialogue and
41:45negotiation are the path towards
41:47coexistence, happiness and
41:50well-being for our peoples.
41:51It is time to take a step
41:53forward.
41:54There's no other way.
41:55A high-level bilateral meeting
41:59organized by key regional
42:01stakeholders will without doubt be
42:04far more productive and effective in
42:07achieving that goal.
42:08Mr. President, members of the
42:10court, a country's virtue is not
42:15measured by its territorial size,
42:17but by its efforts to
42:19legitimately defend its
42:20sovereignty, its territorial
42:22integrity and its inalienable
42:24rights.
42:26Guyana and Venezuela are called upon
42:29by history and by geography to
42:31co-exist, to understand one another
42:34and to build a shared future.
42:36Therefore, the only real path
42:39forward for this controversy is a
42:41return to direct dialogue and the
42:43search for creative and mutually
42:45beneficial solutions that will
42:48allow us to turn a dispute inherited
42:51from colonialism into an
42:53opportunity for cooperation, joint
42:56development and the well-being of
42:59future generations of both peoples.
43:05Contrary to what has been said,
43:07Venezuela has always fully supported
43:09the decolonization of Guyana and
43:13it recognized from the beginning the
43:15republic, the cooperative republic of
43:17Guyana, while still defending its
43:23rights over Guayana Esequiba.
43:24Venezuela also promoted its development
43:26through development programs such as
43:29that of Petro Caribe.
43:31Unfortunately, Venezuela is still
43:34victim of territorial
43:38colonialist dispossession and it is
43:41not being receiving repairs for that.
43:44The people of Guyana, I say, Venezuela is a
43:46peaceful nation and our common
43:49destiny will always, always be
43:51intertwined.
43:52Venezuela, however, will never surrender
43:57its historical rights and its
43:59territorial integrity, the legacy of our
44:02ancestors.
44:04127 years later, we stand up, despite
44:09serious aggressions and threats, to
44:12defend the territory of Guyana Esequiba.
44:15Venezuela, we bear on our skin the scars of
44:19history and in our souls, the tenacity of
44:23peoples who learn to defend what is ours, to
44:26not give up in the face of difficulty and to
44:29march together towards a future of peace and
44:31development.
44:33Thank you very much, distinguished
44:35president and members of the court.
44:37I'd now request that our agent Samuel
44:39Mokada be given the floor.
44:44The acting president of Venezuela for her
44:48statement, I now call the agent of
44:50Venezuela, His Excellency, Mr. Samuel
44:53Mokada, to the podium.
44:56You have the thoughts, sir.
45:07Mr. President, members of the court, I
45:11will now read, for the record, the closing
45:17statements of the Bolivarian Republic of
45:19Venezuela in these oral proceedings.
45:24In the case concerning the arbitral award of
45:283rd of October, 1899, Guyana versus
45:32Venezuela, for the reasons explained in the
45:36written oral phases, the Bolivarian Republic of
45:39Venezuela respectfully reiterates its request to
45:44the court to one abstain from intervening in the
45:50territorial controversy between Venezuela and
45:53Guyana on Guayana-Esequema and from interfering with the
45:57obligations arising from the 1966 Geneva agreement
46:02regarding the settlement of said dispute in an amicable,
46:06satisfactory and acceptable manner for the parties by means of
46:11peaceful, political and diplomatic negotiations.
46:16And, secondly, consequently, to refuse to hear and dismiss the
46:23cooperative Republic of Guyana's claims.
46:27Finally, on behalf of the Venezuelan team, I would like to thank you, Mr.
46:34President, the members of the court, the registry and its staff.
46:39We also extend our sincere gratitude to the interpreters for their excellent work, and in
46:45particular for the interpretation of these oral pleadings into Spanish.
46:51My thanks go, as well, to the delegation of Guyana.
46:56In addition, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Venezuela's distinguished council,
47:04and to the women and men who make up the Venezuelan delegation.
47:07It has been both a privilege and an honour to work alongside you in this case.
47:15Thank you very much for your kind attention.
47:18I thank the agent of Venezuela.
47:21The court has taken note of the final submission of the parties.
47:25I'd like to thank the agents, counsel, and advocates for their statements.
47:32In accordance with practice, I shall request both agents to remain at the court's disposal
47:39to provide any additional information it may require.
47:43With this proviso...
47:46We were listening to the final statements at the ICJ hearing, where Venezuela reaffirms its
47:51sovereignty over Vanessa Quiba, once again also reaffirming the fact that Venezuela does
47:56not recognize the ICJ, the International Criminal Court, as a competent body to resolve the controversy,
48:03since the framework that is established that gives the space for the peaceful resolution of this controversy
48:12already exists, and is the Geneva Agreement of 1966.
48:16We'd listen to the statements of the acting president of Venezuela, Desi Rodriguez,
48:19reaffirming the historical truth of Venezuela on the matter.
48:23We'll have more updates in upcoming news briefs.
Comments