Venezuela...

Irving Cowboy said:
There you go, parroting Trump again.

He doesn't know what he's talking about but it gins guys like you up so he says it.

It doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...
Go google the word Guyana. Educate yourself at least a little.
 
Cotton said:
Go google the word Guyana. Educate yourself at least a little.
Click to expand...
Don’t need to google Guyana.


“Did Venezuela steal oil from the US?

AI Overview

“No, Venezuela didn't "steal" oil from the U.S.; rather, the Venezuelan government nationalized oil assets from U.S. companies, leading to ongoing disputes, with claims of theft being political rhetoric to justify U.S. actions, not legal facts, as oil in Venezuela legally belongs to the state
. While U.S. companies held concessions, Venezuela's sovereign right to its natural resources means the oil belongs to the nation, though compensation for expropriated assets remains a point of contention. “
 
Irving Cowboy said:
Don’t need to google Guyana.


“Did Venezuela steal oil from the US?

AI Overview

“No, Venezuela didn't "steal" oil from the U.S.; rather, the Venezuelan government nationalized oil assets from U.S. companies, leading to ongoing disputes, with claims of theft being political rhetoric to justify U.S. actions, not legal facts, as oil in Venezuela legally belongs to the state
. While U.S. companies held concessions, Venezuela's sovereign right to its natural resources means the oil belongs to the nation, though compensation for expropriated assets remains a point of contention. “
Click to expand...
That’s a bunch of word salad crap. Read the last sentence. Also, why would an oil company go drill somewhere if they wouldn’t outright own the oil once it was in their possession. Makes zero sense.

But, the last sentence gets closer to the truth. Keep on reading. You might find the truth after all.

Btw, where did you get this nonsense from?
 
Cotton said:
That’s a bunch of word salad crap. Read the last sentence. Also, why would an oil company go drill somewhere if they wouldn’t outright own the oil once it was in their possession. Makes zero sense.

But, the last sentence gets closer to the truth. Keep on reading. You might find the truth after all.

Btw, where did you get this nonsense from?
Click to expand...
Google. Same place you told me to look up Guyana.

And yes, the last sentence notwithstanding, here is one of the key points from the same result,
  • Sovereignty: Under international law, Venezuela, as a sovereign nation, has the right to control its natural resources, meaning the oil belongs to the Venezuelan state, not the U.S. government or companies.
 
Irving Cowboy said:
Google. Same place you told me to look up Guyana.

And yes, the last sentence notwithstanding, here is one of the key points from the same result,
  • Sovereignty: Under international law, Venezuela, as a sovereign nation, has the right to control its natural resources, meaning the oil belongs to the Venezuelan state, not the U.S. government or companies.
Click to expand...
Every sovereign has rights to its own resources. But, expropriating US assets is illegal. And that’s what Venezuela did.
 
I don't see anything wrong with reestablishing their ability to export oil and giving American companies access to the market. As you said, Irv, they have the largest reserves in the world but have been unable to capitalize due to sanctions we placed on them. Why shouldn't we facilitate this? The people of Venezuela stand to benefit greatly.
 
Smitty said:
That's called stealing.
Click to expand...
No kidding. What else would you call it?

If I own a house in whatever country and some Marxist dictator suddenly takes over and seizes my property by force, how is that not stealing it?
 
Last edited:
States may nationalize foreign property — but only under strict conditions


Under customary international law and most treaties, a state has the sovereign right to nationalize (expropriate) property within its territory, including foreign-owned assets.


But that right is not unlimited.


For the taking to be lawful, it must satisfy four elements — often summarized as:


Public Purpose
Non-Discrimination
Due Process
Prompt, Adequate, and Effective Compensation
Click to expand...

This is sometimes called the Hull Formula.

1️⃣ Public Purpose

The taking must serve a legitimate governmental objective (e.g., energy security, public infrastructure, economic reform).
A naked confiscation to punish a foreign company is unlawful.

2️⃣ Non-Discrimination

You can’t single out investors based on nationality.
A law seizing only U.S. or EU companies’ assets is presumptively illegal.

3️⃣ Due Process

There must be lawful procedures, notice, and an opportunity to contest the taking.

4️⃣ Compensation

Compensation must be:


  • Prompt – paid without unreasonable delay
  • Adequate – full market value
  • Effective – in a freely transferable currency

Failure on compensation is where most expropriations become internationally wrongful acts.


2. Where This Law Comes From
A. Customary International Law

These principles are recognized by:


  • International Court of Justice
  • State practice
  • Arbitral tribunals
B. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)

Most countries have hundreds of treaties promising:


Fair and equitable treatment
Protection against uncompensated expropriation
Access to international arbitration
Click to expand...

These treaties are directly enforceable by companies.

C. Multilateral Treaties

Most notably:


  • ICSID Convention (World Bank arbitration system)
  • Energy Charter Treaty (for energy sector)
 
Venezuela’s nationalization of oil assets, particularly under Hugo Chávez in the 2000s, is not viewed as an undisputed model of lawful expropriation under international law. The critical points are:


🛢️ 1. Historical Context of Venezuelan Nationalization

Venezuela formally nationalized its oil industry back in 1976, creating the state-owned company PDVSA and bringing foreign oil concessions under state control. Many U.S. and other foreign companies saw their operations converted into Venezuelan state enterprises. Wikipedia+1


Later, under Presidents Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela renegotiated or effectively expropriated additional foreign oil and resource projects, particularly from international oil majors operating in the 1990s and early 2000s. TIME


💰 2. Compensation Was Not Universally Accepted as Adequate

International law requires that expropriations be accompanied by prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. In Venezuela’s case:


  • Some U.S. companies, like ExxonMobil, pursued arbitration claims against Venezuela and won substantial awards (e.g., about $1.6 billion in a 2014 ICSID award) after the government failed to pay what the tribunal determined was fair compensation. King & Spalding+1
  • Similarly, companies such as ConocoPhillips have obtained multi-billion-dollar arbitration awards, and Venezuela has often not satisfied those awards. Reuters
  • Chevron, which remained operating under special licensing arrangements, did not pursue the same level of compensation claims because it negotiated ongoing terms with PDVSA, suggesting a different outcome depending on the investor’s strategy. Reuters

So whether compensation was “adequate” is disputed — some tribunals said no and issued awards, which Venezuela has largely not paid yet.


⚖️ 3. International Arbitration Reflects that Claims Were Disputed

The fact that numerous oil companies brought and won arbitration proceedings against Venezuela indicates that both:


  • the legality of the expropriations was contested, and
  • Venezuela’s compensation offers were found deficient by tribunals under treaties like bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and ICSID rules. King & Spalding+1

Countries and investors do not enter arbitration if an expropriation was clearly lawful and compensated.


🏛️ 4. Key Legal Points in How International Law Views This
🟡 Sovereign Right to Nationalize

States can nationalize property — this is a recognized sovereign right. But they must:


  1. Serve a public purpose
  2. Apply measures non-discriminatorily
  3. Ensure due process
  4. Pay adequate compensation
    (These standards come from custom and investment treaties.)

Nationalization per se did not violate international law — but:

🔴 Compensation Was Not Universally Accepted

The critical dispute was about whether Venezuela paid adequate compensation, i.e.:


  • International tribunals ruled that the compensation offered was insufficient in multiple cases, finding violations of treaty standards. King & Spalding

So rather than being an undisputed lawful expropriation, Venezuela’s actions led to arbitration claims and awards precisely because investors challenged the legality and compensation under international law.
 
Once again, Irv running his mouth on something he knows nothing about other than that he jumped into the water with the raving anti-Trump idiots cause he's anti-Trump like they are.

So yeah, stealing.
 
Cujo said:
I don't see anything wrong with reestablishing their ability to export oil and giving American companies access to the market. As you said, Irv, they have the largest reserves in the world but have been unable to capitalize due to sanctions we placed on them. Why shouldn't we facilitate this? The people of Venezuela stand to benefit greatly.
Click to expand...

It's what they want.

It's what everyone wants, really, besides Maduro himself, white American far leftists, and Reagan Republicans like Irv.
 
Also, I'm happy to withdraw from any bullshit treaty that says a country can seize American assets under the guise of Communist "nationalization."

They can feel free do that to every other tiny dick nation ... and then tiptoe around our presence like the Cubans at Guantanamo.
 
Last edited:
Irving Cowboy said:
Don’t need to google Guyana.


“Did Venezuela steal oil from the US?

AI Overview

“No, Venezuela didn't "steal" oil from the U.S.; rather, the Venezuelan government nationalized oil assets from U.S. companies, leading to ongoing disputes, with claims of theft being political rhetoric to justify U.S. actions, not legal facts, as oil in Venezuela legally belongs to the state
. While U.S. companies held concessions, Venezuela's sovereign right to its natural resources means the oil belongs to the nation, though compensation for expropriated assets remains a point of contention. “
Click to expand...

The overthrow of President Nicolas Maduro could pave the way for Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips to recover assets that were seized by Venezuela in a 2007 nationalization.

If someone seizes my assets that's theft. Just saying.
 
Forgive me if I would rather rely on what the International Court says rather than Schmitty,s pompous, pretentious ass says.
 
And don’t you think that if the International Court had said these assets were illegally seized that they would have been returned/compensated a long time ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom