"The 1966 Geneva Agreement is the only instrument governing the territorial controversy"

Added: 2026-05-11

[00:00:03]In my capacity as solicitor general of Venezuela and as an international jurist, I will present the final legal observations on this matter.

[00:00:16]During the course of these oral hearings, you've heard Venezuela's historical truth, which demonstrates its position and its deep commitment to international law as the foundation of peaceful relations among all states.

[00:00:35]And it is precisely for these reasons that Venezuela has consistently and unequivocally maintained its position that the 1899 award is null and void.

[00:00:50]This was the reason why during the decolonization period, Venezuela and the United Kingdom once the evidence had come to light put the issue of the 1899 award behind them and redefined their relationship in the 1966 Geneva agreement.

[00:01:17]I applaud the statement by the attorney general of Gana regarding his country country's deep commitment to international law.

[00:01:28]But I am compelled to recall that the Geneva Agreement is not merely a norm of international law but rather the norm of international law that Venezuela and Gana imposed upon themselves. Paka Savand.

[00:01:44]Mr. President, members of the court, I would like to refer to the 1966 Geneva Agreement as the sole binding instrument governing the territorial dispute dispute over Gana Equiva. As presented by professors Zimba and Zimmerman, Venezuela's position on the real issue or the subject matter of the dispute between Venezuela and Guana is not the invalidity of the 1899 arbitral award.

[00:02:14]The real issue of the dispute is the obligation under the 1966 Geneva agreement to seek a mutually satisfactory solution to the territorial dispute.

[00:02:33]Regrettably, Guana has attempted to distort the subject matter of the dispute with the malicious absurdity of convincing the court to legitimize the 1899 award.

[00:02:48]A product of the unfortunate colonial past that our two countries endured in different ways.

[00:02:58]Affirming the validity or invalidity of the 1899 award would perpetuate a profoundly illicit and unlawful colonial outcome which the parties to the Geneva agreement superseded and set aside.

[00:03:14]This is a settled and resolved matter.

[00:03:20]In contrast, the 1966 Geneva agreement novated the previous legal regime that the colonial power had imposed through structural coercion.

[00:03:33]By signing the Geneva Agreement, the parties replaced the fraudulent legal framework which had been sought to established or had been sought to be established by the 1897 treaty, the 1899 colonialist award and the 1905 demarcation agreement with a new framework.

[00:03:53]one in which the parties committed to seeking satisfactory solutions to the practical for the practical resolution of the territorial dispute.

[00:04:04]The Genev agreement is part of the decolonization process.

[00:04:08]This process involves more than merely granting independence to occupied territories.

[00:04:15]It also entails red addressing the injustices of territorial disposition dispossession committed against sovereign states.

[00:04:26]Mr. President, members of the court, I will now address Gana's false allegation regarding Venezuela's alleged acquiescence and its purported theory of cure based on Venezuela's conduct following the issuance of the award.

[00:04:45]Professors Tuvena and Azeria have demonstrated that this argument is fundamentally flawed and lacks evidentiary basis.

[00:04:56]On the one hand, there is no legal principle in international law that allows the nullity of an arbitral award to be cured by the conduct of the parties.

[00:05:16]One cannot remedy what arose from illegit illegality and fraud. In any case, Venezuela has always opposed such a principle, especially during the Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties.

[00:05:28]The evidence gathered by Venezuela demonstrates that it never waved its right to invoke the invalidity of the award.

[00:05:39]This was unequivocally established in the Geneva Agreement.

[00:05:44]Furthermore, a state may only invoke the invalidity of the award when it possesses evidence to prove it.

[00:05:54]Venezuela only obtained such evidence following the publication of the Mallay Provost Memorandum.

[00:06:02]Around that time, the British archives were partially opened and subsequent investigations were conducted which enabled Venezuela to demonstrate the defects in the award.

[00:06:22]In this regard, Venezuela's conduct reflects the degree of seriousness and diligence expected of a state under international law.

[00:06:31]With respect to challenging an arbitral award of the important and magnitude of the fraudulent 1899 award.

[00:06:52]Moreover, the circumstances of the time confirm that V Venezuela was a victim of the United Kingdom's imperialist greed.

[00:07:02]I'm compelled to point out, Mr. President, members of the court, that Guana maliciously seeks to deny the asymmetry of power that existed between Venezuela and the powers of the time. A country devastated by war was not in a position to confront the world's greatest naval and military power of that area in order to preserve its right to invalidate an award. The absurdity of Gana's claim does not end there.

[00:07:34]Guana asks the court to consider an even more irrational proposition as reasonable.

[00:07:42]Gana argues that Venezuela, regardless of the circumstances of extreme military disparities in the early 20th century, was in a position to and was expected to challenge an arbitral award, even without evidence to demonstrate the awards invalidity. and it was expected to do so knowing that it would have that it would have to be prepared to endure another war at the hands of its aggressor. A war that it would undoubtedly lose again.

[00:08:18]With the utmost respect, Mr. President, members of the court, Gana's claim runs counter to justice, good faith, and defies all reason.

[00:08:34]Venezuela has made it clear that the real issue and what really matters in this dispute is the 1966 Geneva agreement. However, Mr. President, members of the court, it would like I would like to raise a third point before presenting my final conclusions.

[00:08:51]As professors Tams and Parkqueti clearly explained, even if Quadnon, the dispute concerned the 1899 award, Guana's assertion that the award is valid completely fails.

[00:09:08]Venezuela has clearly demonstrated with reliable evidence that the 1899 award is null and void and that Guano's unilateral submission to the court lacks any basis.

[00:09:20]First, Venezuela has demonstrated that the 1897 Treaty of Washington is invalid on grounds of error and fraud.

[00:09:38]Therefore, the 1899 award, which was based on this invalid treaty, is inevitably and consequently also invalid.

[00:09:51]Second, Venezuela has provided evidence, including contemporary evidence, showing that it was coerced into accepting the 1897 Treaty of Washington, which invalidates the treaty itself, as well as the subsequent 1899 award.

[00:10:11]There is also contemporary evidence demonstrating that Venezuela was the victim of coercion and during having been threatened with the use of force in the months immediately preceding the negotiations of the 1897 Treaty of Washington between Great Britain and the United and the United States. Third, Venezuela's historical position has been that the 1899 award also suffered from multiple defects.

[00:10:45]Venezuela convincingly demonstrated with substantial evidence that the award is invalid primarily for two reasons.

[00:10:56]First, the tri tribunal did not state the grounds on which the decision was based. Second, the tribunal exceeded its authority.

[00:11:07]There are five instances of this abuse of power. Firstly, the tribunal failed to answer one of the questions posed to it in article 3 of the Washington treaty.

[00:11:19]Secondly, the tribunal failed to apply the rules specified in article 4. Thirdly, the tribunal acted in a manner inconsistent with the scope of its powers by deciding on matters outside its jurisdiction.

[00:11:36]Fourthly, the tribunal did not act impartially as required under article 5.

[00:11:44]Fifthly, the tribunal failed to fulfill its duty to render a decision based on the law.

[00:11:53]Mr. President, members of the court, I have two concluding remarks.

[00:11:58]First, I will comment on the documentary record.

[00:12:04]Despite the obstacles and difficulties created by the United Kingdom to prevent Venezuela from accessing the original sources, we have been able to compile and present hundreds of documents.

[00:12:21]This documentary evidence has been compiled and analyzed over many years by Venezuelan and British experts who examined the archives of the United Kingdom as well as Venezuela's National Archives in order to investigate the circumstances surrounding the null and void award of 1899.

[00:12:43]This process has been a source of deep sadness as it has laid bare in great detail and reignited the injustice that our country has had to endure for more than 120 years due to the unjust and invalid treaty of Washington of 1897 and the unjust and invalid arbitral award of 1899.

[00:13:09]both products of the colonial era that our country had hoped and strived to leave behind.

[00:13:18]Venezuela is also aware of the probable existence of other relevant documents.

[00:13:25]With regard to such documentation, the conduct of the United Kingdom and Guana is inexcusable.

[00:13:34]Archival documents from April 1970, to which access has only recently been granted, confirm that the United Kingdom actively cooperated with Gana in the preparation of this case.

[00:13:49]The relevant file held at the British National Archives under reference number FC 63 stroke 477 contains documents demonstrating cooperation between the government of the United Kingdom and Gana's legal advisers regarding the territorial dispute with Venezuela.

[00:14:13]These documents revealed that British authorities acknowledged they were in possession of archival material that might not be available elsewhere.

[00:14:27]Consequently, the United Kingdom provided Guana's legal advisers with access to restricted documents, including confidential material, while denying Venezuela equivalent access.

[00:14:46]This constitutes a serious violation of the principle of equality of arms.

[00:14:53]But there's more.

[00:14:55]The United Kingdom's history of selectively destroying archives in the context of the decolonization process is also confirmed by the documents identified by reference numbers FCO 141 stroke 1 1992 and FCO 63 stroke 476.

[00:15:18]This must not be ignored.

[00:15:22]In an effort to remedy this asymmetry, on April 25th, 2023, Venezuela transmitted a note verbal expressing its concern regarding Gana's exclusive access to documents related to the dispute.

[00:15:40]In that note, Venezuela recalled the existence of a set of documents communicated by the United Kingdom to Guana without notification or transmission to Venezuela or the United Nations as required by the Geneva Agreement.

[00:16:01]Venezuela made a specific request that Guana share a detailed list of the documents received as well as any other documents obtained exclusively and without Venezuela's knowledge.

[00:16:18]Gana's response of June the 22nd, 2023 categorically rejected any obligation to provide such documentation.

[00:16:29]I now turn to my second observation.

[00:16:32]Throughout these hearings, Guana's lawyers have portrayed Venezuela's position as a myth or a fiction.

[00:16:42]They also attempted to counter the weight of Venezuela's arguments and opposition with shameful personal attacks and disparagements against Venezuela's legal team.

[00:17:05]I will not go into Gana's tactics which are inelegant, inappropriate, and lack the dignity expected of this type of proceeding, especially from a state that claims to respect international law.

[00:17:21]These tactics reveal that Venezuela's official position, its arguments, and the evidence supporting them can only be met by Gana with insults, offenses.

[00:17:36]Any reasonable observer would see through these tactics and draw the appropriate conclusions from them.

[00:17:43]Venezuela is very proud of its legal team and is enormously grateful to them for their dedication and professionalism.

[00:17:56]Mr. President, members of members of the court, it was the existence of two contradictory positions regarding the validity of the 1899 award that led in 1966 to the Geneva Agreement.

[00:18:09]The agreement was not concluded because one party was right and the other was living in a fantasy. It was concluded because both parties recognized that their disagreement could not be resolved by determining who was right about the past, but only by agreeing on a way forward.

[00:18:35]Venezuela is willing to resolve the dispute over the territorial border with Gana, but such a solution must be achieved in accordance with the only valid legal framework governing the dispute, the 1966 Geneva Agreement, and its mandate to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

[00:19:01]Mr. President, members of the court, this concludes my statement. I thank you very much for your kind attention and I respectfully request that you grant the floor to the president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.