-
- Territorial claims are decided in court, not worn on a lapel
By Sir Ronald Sanders
There are moments in international affairs when a seemingly small act reveals a much larger contest of principle. The recent controversy over the wearing, during official engagements in the Caribbean, of a brooch depicting Guyana’s Essequibo region as part of Venezuela is one such moment.
It would be easy, and politically convenient, to dismiss the issue as trivial. Some have suggested that concern over the display amounts to little more than sensitivity to matters of personal attire. That characterisation is not merely dismissive; it is misleading.
The matter is not about dress. It is about conduct.
When a head of government displays, in official engagements with other states, a symbol that asserts a territorial claim against a neighbour, that act ceases to be personal expression. It becomes an instrument of state policy. It is intended to communicate, to reinforce, and to normalise a position that is very much in dispute.
That dispute is not abstract. It is currently before the International Court of Justice, to which Guyana has turned for a final and binding determination of the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that fixed the boundary between the two countries.
Venezuela now asserts that its position is grounded in international law and in the Geneva Agreement. That claim requires careful scrutiny. The Geneva Agreement did not determine sovereignty, nor did it invalidate the 1899 Award. It established a mechanism for the peaceful resolution of a controversy and, ultimately, the pathway that has led the matter to the Court. It is therefore incorrect to suggest that the Geneva Agreement justifies unilateral assertions of territorial entitlement while the very question it addresses is before judicial determination.
In that context, it is difficult to reconcile assertions of fidelity to international law with conduct that appears designed to shape perceptions of a matter that is sub judice. A state cannot credibly submit a controversy to judicial settlement while simultaneously seeking, through symbols, legislation, or administrative acts, to advance the outcome it desires outside the courtroom.
The wearing of a brooch, displaying Essequibo as part of a map of Venezuela, is part of a wider pattern. It accompanies legislative measures purporting to annex the territory, the appointment of officials for it, and a sustained narrative of sovereign entitlement. Taken together, these actions suggest not restraint pending adjudication, but a parallel effort to consolidate a claim by political means.
In this connection, the response of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) assumes particular importance.
CARICOM’s statement of 28 April 2026 was measured, but it was also clear. It reaffirmed the sovereign right of member states to engage with external partners. But it placed that right within a framework of collective obligation under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. Most significantly, it underscored that Community platforms must not be used, directly or indirectly, to advance or appear to legitimise claims that are before the Court.
That formulation is a quiet but firm assertion of regional discipline, even amid claims of disunity in the integration movement.
The CARICOM statement protects the integrity of the judicial process. It preserves the unity of the Community. And it signals that, while CARICOM will not interfere in the bilateral relations of its members, neither will it allow its forums to become instruments in the prosecution of a territorial claim against one of its own. That latter point must not be discounted.
President Irfaan Ali’s response, in writing to the chair of CARICOM, was therefore both justified and necessary. It was not an overreaction, nor an exercise in rhetoric. It was a defence of principle at a moment when ambiguity could easily have taken hold.
I worked with Delcy Rodríguez between 2015 and 2017 when I opposed efforts by some member states of the Organization of American States to impose measures against the Venezuelan government outside the established rules of the Organization. I did so out of respect for procedure, law, and fairness. I respected her as a formidable advocate for her government in a difficult and contested period.
But this matter is not about personalities, political alignment, or attire. It is about principle, process, and respect for a matter now before the Court.
The broader issue is whether all parties will match their stated commitment to international law with conduct consistent with it.
If the controversy is to be resolved peacefully, finally, and in accordance with international law, then the process before the Court must be allowed to proceed free from actions that risk prejudging or politicising its outcome. That requires restraint, not symbolism; discipline, not theatre.
A lapel pin cannot alter a boundary. But the conduct it represents can either support or undermine the principles by which that boundary is to be determined.
In this instance, the Caribbean has chosen, quietly but firmly, to stand on the side of law.