Despite Trotman's stern warning to Venezuela, is a territorial war inevitable between the two countries? The oil discovery has been an aged old dream come for Guyana, and Venezuela is hoping to stop the exploration at all cost. If this tension builds up, what would stop these two countries to defend their territorial disputes? Guyana is no match for Venezuela, and will need foreign help from Britain or America. What are the pros and cons for the region should there be a war with foreign involvement?
Original Post
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
What war are we talking about?

This will never happen. There will never be a Venezuelan invasion so stop fantasizing. I know you PPPites are praying for this night and day.

It is possible for Venezuela to try to impound ships in the newly claimed zone.  If an american ship is involved there could be war.  Of course it would last only couple days.  Is this a stretch?

Cobra,

I know this because I have taken a basic international law course. A Venezuelan invasion would be swiftly denounced by the Security Council and Venezuela would be declared an "aggressor" and menace to "regional peace and security" and the border dispute would get thrown to the ICJ for some kinda compulsory arbitration and of course the 1899 Arbitral Award would be upheld over the Memo of some twat made some decades after the fact. Venezuela can only "win" by forcing Guyana to surrender territory in bilateral negotiations. I'm surprised they never thought to bribe the PPP. We know their vaginas was for sale cheaply.
Originally Posted by Cobra:
Is Venezuela bluffing?

Venezuela was, is and will continue to bluff.

 

The border issue with Venezuela was resolved in 1899, as noted in the information I provided a few times on this topic.

 

Venezuela may intercept ships that are exclusively in their boundaries.

 

Oil will continue to be a major issue of contention, when/if it is fully developed and operational in Guyana's interest.

Originally Posted by antabanta:

A conflict with Guyana will provide an excuse for American intervention to spank Venezuela. It's very likely that that is the plan, making Guyana a helpless pawn.

Strange how history plays. It was America who riled up the Venezuelans about the 1899 tribunal back in the days of the PPP communists. The intent to invade Guyana if the need arises. Now, with Venezuela's leftist leanings-the notion of America beating up Venezuela for Guyana. Guyana is strategic in the hemisphere.

 

I say, Venezuela should make their move and see how it pans out. Dey gat nothing to loose-either they get Essequibo or they don't. It is worth the little collateral damage.

Originally Posted by antabanta:

A conflict with Guyana will provide an excuse for American intervention to spank Venezuela. It's very likely that that is the plan, making Guyana a helpless pawn.

Could Guyana be a beneficiary of a conflict that involves USA and Venezuela?  My understanding is borders issued could be settled in a war.  So if in theory Venezuela gets its ass kicked and has to surrender in a war then the border issue can be settled once and for all.  Is this too far fetched logic?

Originally Posted by seignet:
Originally Posted by antabanta:

A conflict with Guyana will provide an excuse for American intervention to spank Venezuela. It's very likely that that is the plan, making Guyana a helpless pawn.

Strange how history plays. It was America who riled up the Venezuelans about the 1899 tribunal back in the days of the PPP communists. The intent to invade Guyana if the need arises. Now, with Venezuela's leftist leanings-the notion of America beating up Venezuela for Guyana. Guyana is strategic in the hemisphere.

 

I say, Venezuela should make their move and see how it pans out. Dey gat nothing to loose-either they get Essequibo or they don't. It is worth the little collateral damage.

  Any move by Venezuela will get the US involved so they will lose.

VVP,

Borders cannot be altered by war anymore. The acquisition of territory by war is absolutely forbidden in modern international law. Territory can only be exchanged by treaty. This is why Israel cannot lawfully annex the 1967 territories it won by conquest absent a bilateral agreement with the Palestinians.

As well, war is not one of the ways the UN Charter prescribes for settling boundary disputes.
Originally Posted by Shaitaan:
VVP,

Borders cannot be altered by war anymore. The acquisition of territory by war is absolutely forbidden in modern international law. Territory can only be exchanged by treaty. This is why Israel cannot lawfully annex the 1967 territories it won by conquest absent a bilateral agreement with the Palestinians.

As well, war is not one of the ways the UN Charter prescribes for settling boundary disputes.

Okay, got you.  But could there be a "forced negotiation" for surrender terms?

Here from Wikipedia:

 

Israel seized control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula (from Egypt), the West Bank and East Jerusalem (from Jordan) and the Golan Heights (from Syria). The area under Israeli control tripled, significantly contributing to the country's defensibility, as would be shown in the subsequent Yom Kippur War

For VVP,

Israel is legally the "occupying power" which is a legal position under the laws of war. Specifically The Hague Convention 1907 and the Geneva Convention 1949.

Israel is essentially running a military occupation over the Territories. The Territories were seized from Jordanian sovereignty which were seized from the expiration of the British Mandate over Palestine which were seized from the Turkish Ottoman Empire which were seized from the Christian Crusader Kingdoms.

However, the most relevant laws would be the League of Nations then UN Mandate to the British over Palestine which had set aside the territories in question for the Arab state (Palestine) to be partitioned from the Jewish Israeli State and subject to self-determination as part of the decolonization policy of the UN.
The Sinai was given back and demilitarized and Israel still occupies the Golan Heights. Those are different from the "Territories" in question which are the residue of Mandatory Palestine formerly under unlawful Jordanian occupation.
Also, to complicate the issue a little more. Mandate Palestine includes all Israel, the Territories, and Jordan. Jordan was the first state carved out of Palestine. The remainder was then made subject to a UN partition plan the Arab Palestinians rejected. They declared war and lost in 1948.

This particular issue of Israel v Palestine is not the best example of the sanctity of borders.

The UN Charter declares all member states to have "territorial integrity" that cannot be altered by war. "Once a state always a state" is the rule. The rare exceptions are when countries dissolve under the principle of self-determination into multiple states like Yugoslavia. And more recently Kosovo. However, in those instances you did not see the acquisition of territory by one state over another.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post


×
×
×
×
×