By: Ricardo Abud
In recent days, President Donald Trump has made statements that defy fundamental principles of international law and national sovereignty. The US president has claimed that Venezuela deprived the United States of its oil rights and is demanding that the South American country return oil, land, and assets.
These claims require rigorous analysis that compares them with historical, legal, and international reality.On December 17, 2025, Trump declared to the press: "Remember, they took away all of our energy rights. They took away all of our oil not that long ago. We want it back. They took it illegally." These statements came in the context of an announced blockade against sanctioned oil tankers operating in Venezuelan waters.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller went further, stating that the United States created Venezuela's oil industry and calling the 1976 nationalization "the biggest theft" in American history.
This assertion deliberately ignores Venezuela's documented history. The country's first oil company, Petrolia del Táchira, was founded in 1878 with exclusively Venezuelan personnel, decades before American companies arrived in the country. Venezuelan oil activity has pre-Hispanic roots, when oil was used to waterproof ships.
Foreign companies operated in Venezuela under a system of concessions granted by the Venezuelan state, not because they "created" the industry, but because the Venezuelan legal framework allowed them to participate in the exploitation of resources that had always belonged to the nation. This concession system was established and regulated by Venezuelan laws, including important reforms such as the 1943 Hydrocarbons Law, which sought to increase national control over the industry.
The participation of foreign companies does not equate to "creation" nor does it grant perpetual rights over natural resources belonging to the host state. US companies and other transnational corporations operated under temporary concession agreements that, by their very legal nature, had an expiration date.
The Venezuelan oil industry was nationalized on January 1, 1976, during the first presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez. This process was carried out through the Organic Law that Reserves to the State the Industry and Commerce of Hydrocarbons, legally enacted by the Venezuelan Congress.
Crucially, the 14 foreign operators were compensated with approximately $1,054,000,000, $117,000,000 in cash and the remainder in government bonds. In other words, the process included financial compensation for the affected companies.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII), adopted in 1962, clearly states that:
"The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their wealth and natural resources must be exercised in the interest of national development and the well-being of the people of the respective State."
More specifically, this resolution recognizes that "Nationalization, expropriation or requisition must be based on reasons or motives of public utility, security or national interest, which are recognized as superior to mere particular or private interest, whether national or foreign."
- Venezuelan nationalization met these requirements:
- It had a legal basis in national legislation.
- It was based on the national interest
- It included compensation for the affected companies
- He respected the framework of international law
Venezuela was not the only country to nationalize its oil industry. Mexico did so in 1938, Iran in 1951, and numerous other countries followed suit as an expression of their sovereignty over natural resources. None of these acts were considered "theft" under international law.
The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources is a cornerstone of contemporary international law. This principle establishes that resources belonging to a country must be controlled by its government, based on the idea that they are a source of wealth and power, and that each nation has the right to exploit them for its own benefit.
UN Resolution 1803 (XVII) is clear in stating that "The violation of the sovereign rights of peoples and nations over their wealth and natural resources is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the development of international cooperation and the preservation of peace."
The oil concessions granted to foreign companies were temporary contracts, not cessions of sovereignty. Once the terms of the concessions expired, or upon nationalization through legal processes with compensation, the companies retained no "rights" over the host country's natural resources.
The oil beneath Venezuela never ceased to belong to Venezuela. Foreign companies had the right to exploit these resources under specific and temporary conditions, not to appropriate them.
This is perhaps the most extraordinary and unfounded claim. Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López characterized these statements as "delusional" and pointed out that "they are incredibly claiming that we have stolen oil, land, and other assets from them, which is completely false."
The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. There is no basis in international law that allows one State to claim the territory of another based on past private investments.
Venezuelan land is sovereign territory of Venezuela, internationally recognized. No commercial activity or foreign investment creates territorial rights for foreign powers.
Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks argued that "President Trump is coveting Venezuelan oil," making clear the true nature of these statements.
The Venezuelan government itself has interpreted these statements as an admission. "Their mask has slipped: it's not drug trafficking, it's oil," President Maduro declared. This demonstrates that the initial narrative of "combating drug trafficking" was a pretext for economic objectives.
The statements by Trump and his administration directly challenge the principle of state sovereignty, one of the fundamental pillars of the post-1945 international order. To suggest that the United States has rights over another country's natural resources is tantamount to denying that state's independence.
The language used ("they took it from us," "we want it back") reflects a 19th-century colonial mentality, incompatible with 21st-century international law. It presupposes that the natural resources of developing countries "belong" naturally to the powers that exploit them, a notion discredited since decolonization.
If Trump's logic were accepted, any country that once had companies operating in another could claim "rights" to that country's resources. This would destroy the international order and legitimize economic neo-imperialism.
The United States has historically defended the right of states to control their natural resources when it served their interests. The contradiction is evident when that same right is now denied to Venezuela.
The Venezuelan oil nationalization of 1976 was the result of a gradual historical process that sought greater national control over the country's main resource. This process included:
- The Hydrocarbons Law of 1943, which increased royalties and taxes
- The creation of the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation in 1960
- The co-founding of OPEC in 1960
- The Reversion Act of 1971
- Finally, the Nationalization Law of 1975
Two decades after its creation, PDVSA was ranked as the second largest oil company in the world and one of the best managed, demonstrating that Venezuela had the technical and managerial capacity to manage its oil industry.
In 2007, President Hugo Chávez modified the rules governing the oil industry to force multinational corporations to become minority partners in PDVSA or withdraw from the country. This was another legitimate exercise of national sovereignty, similar to the conditions many oil-producing countries impose on foreign companies.
Some companies, such as ConocoPhillips, rejected these conditions and left the country. Subsequently, international arbitration tribunals determined compensation that Venezuela must pay, demonstrating that legal mechanisms exist to resolve these disputes without resorting to military threats or unfounded territorial claims.
Trump's statements represent a direct challenge to the established international order. Allowing one state to claim another's natural resources based on past private investments would set a catastrophic precedent that could:
- Legitimizing foreign interventions in countries with valuable resources
- Undermining the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources
- Reviving discredited colonial and imperialist doctrines
- To destabilize the international system based on the sovereign equality of states
The statements made by President Trump and his administration regarding Venezuelan oil and land lack foundation in international law, contradict documented history, and represent a regression to outdated colonial concepts.
Venezuela exercised its sovereign and internationally recognized right to nationalize its oil industry in 1976, a process that included compensation and respected the international legal framework. Subsequent modifications to the conditions of foreign participation are equally legitimate expressions of national sovereignty.
The international community must reject these claims which, if accepted, would destroy the fundamental principles of the international order: state sovereignty, territorial integrity, the self-determination of peoples and the permanent right of nations over their natural resources.
As UN Resolution 1803 (XVII) points out, the violation of these sovereign rights "is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and impedes the development of international cooperation and the preservation of peace." At a time of growing international tension, respecting these principles is not only a matter of law, but also of global peace and stability.
Trump's statements are not mere rhetorical excesses; they represent a worldview incompatible with 21st-century international law, where the sovereignty of nations over their natural resources is an inviolable principle that protects both large and small countries from economic and political subjugation.
THERE IS NOTHING MORE EXCLUSIONARY THAN BEING POOR
0 Comentarios