The Chancellor of the Republic, Yván Gil, reaffirmed the validity of the 1966 Geneva Agreement as the only legal instrument to resolve the controversy over Guayana Esequiba.
Gil stressed that Venezuela will not respond to the use of force with similar measures, but through the diplomatic mechanisms contemplated in the 1966 document.
During the forum “60 years after the Geneva Agreement: Validity, legality and historical position of Venezuela”, Gil maintained that Venezuela defends its sovereignty through diplomacy and reason, rejecting any attempt to impose force and reiterated that it has not ceased in the defense of the Essequibo territory.
From the Yellow House in Caracas, the diplomat emphasized that territorial differences must be resolved through peaceful means and direct understanding.
He emphasized that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) lacks jurisdiction to resolve this territorial dispute in the face of Guyana’s attempt to internationalize the conflict through an irrational lawsuit.
According to the chancellor, the Geneva Agreement should be established as a global model to resolve territorial conflicts without the intervention of third parties, considering that the mediation of external factors usually generates decisions that do not satisfy the parties involved. “There is no third party, no court, no arbitration that will definitively solve this controversy. “It is not possible, it is not applicable,” he added.
International academic contribution
The event featured the participation of Dr. Antonio Remiro Brotons, emeritus professor of Public International Law at the Autonomous University of Madrid and lawyer before the International Court of Justice.
Gil presented the Spanish expert as a key authority to analyze the legal and political aspects that support Venezuela’s historical position.
The intervention of Professor Brotons, along with other specialists in the field, is part of a State agenda aimed at disseminating the legal foundations that invalidate the Paris Arbitration Award.
The chancellor concluded that words and direct dialogue are the definitive ways to reach a satisfactory agreement and comply with the original spirit of the Geneva treaty.
Consent: unavoidable axis of any judicial settlement
Meanwhile, the professor of Public International Law, María Esperanza Orihuela, explained that consent is the unavoidable axis of any judicial settlement.
The expert explained that the Geneva Agreement arose after the “collusion” of the 1899 Award, which Venezuela considers null and void, and stressed that no nation can be forced to submit to the mediation or arbitration of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) without having expressed its prior will, as established in article 36 of the Statute of the Court itself.
Orihuela dismissed Guyana’s unilateral claim by clarifying that Article Four of the 1966 treaty obliges the parties to choose procedures by mutual agreement and does not grant automatic powers to external courts.
He recalled that Venezuela has maintained a historical policy of reserve against mechanisms that compromise its vital interests, a position that was recently ratified by the people in the referendum of December 3, 2023.
