How has Venezuela responded legally and politically to enforcement efforts on ConocoPhillips’ and ExxonMobil’s arbitration awards?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Venezuela has mounted both legal and political resistance to foreign arbitration awards from ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, exhausting multiple annulment and appeal routes while publicly rejecting the legitimacy of some rulings and taking steps to shield assets from seizure [1] [2]. Despite these efforts, international tribunals have largely upheld ConocoPhillips’ awards and private claimants have pursued aggressive enforcement actions overseas, even as Venezuela has used settlement, litigation delay tactics and state policy pronouncements to resist payment [3] [4] [5].
1. Legal appeals and annulment bids: squeezing every procedural option
Venezuela formally sought to annul ConocoPhillips’ ICSID award and pursued a series of procedural challenges that culminated in an ad hoc annulment committee declining to set aside the roughly $8.5–8.7 billion award in January 2025, a decision widely reported as ending Venezuela’s remaining annulment avenues in that case [3] [6]. The challenge was extensive: Venezuela previously contested arbitrator appointments and filed repeated reconsideration requests during long ICSID proceedings, but the committee’s detailed decision rejected those arguments and left the underlying award intact [7] [1]. For ExxonMobil, the legal picture has been more complicated historically: Exxon’s 2014/2015 ICSID award was annulled in 2015 and Exxon filed subsequent claims seeking to restore the original ruling, meaning Venezuela has faced a rolling set of proceedings rather than one final adjudication in that dispute [8].
2. Enforcement battles abroad: seizures, auctions and creditor maneuvers
Faced with binding awards, claimants have moved to attach Venezuelan assets and collect through courts in other jurisdictions, a strategy that Caracas has tried to blunt; ConocoPhillips, for example, sought to seize payments to Venezuela from joint offshore projects and has pursued attachments in Caribbean jurisdictions while also participating in processes to place claims against CITGO in the United States’ Delaware bankruptcy/auction context [5] [4]. U.S. and Caribbean courts have at times permitted enforcement steps—Conoco obtained recognition of enforcement in U.S. courts previously and the awards have been listed among claims in the mandated auction of CITGO, exposing PDVSA assets to creditors [4] [8]. Venezuela’s legal responses have included contesting jurisdiction, pressing annulment attempts, and litigating the status and disposition of assets like CITGO to frustrate or delay enforcement [7] [2].
3. Political defiance and asset-protection policy
Politically, Venezuelan leaders have long signaled non-recognition and resistance to international awards tied to the Chávez-era nationalizations—Hugo Chávez publicly vowed not to recognize ICSID-type decisions and Venezuelan officials have described attempts to liquidate or repatriate assets as sovereign prerogatives, tactics that serve both domestic political narratives and practical asset-protection goals [2]. Those declarations translate into government action: PDVSA and state actors have negotiated selective settlements (notably the 2018 $2 billion agreement between ConocoPhillips and PDVSA) when politically and financially expedient, while otherwise contesting awards or structuring asset transfers to complicate creditor collection [9] [4].
4. Financial pressure and interest accrual: leverage and strain
The accumulation of interest on long-standing awards has dramatically increased the sums at stake—ConocoPhillips’ original award has been reported to have grown past $11 billion with a 5.5 percent annual interest rate—adding political salience for Caracas as these liabilities compound amid Venezuela’s fiscal stress and sanctions environment [4] [10]. That dynamic partly explains why Venezuela has combined litigation, limited settlements and asset-shielding measures: paying large foreign claimants outright would carry significant political cost domestically and further deplete scarce foreign currency reserves [10] [9].
5. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Reporting and statements reflect competing agendas: claimants and Western media emphasise enforcement and court victories to legitimize seizures and auctions, while Venezuelan-government-aligned outlets and officials emphasize sovereignty, illegitimacy of certain tribunals and the political motivations of “vulture” creditors—an approach intended to mobilize domestic support and complicate international enforcement [4] [2]. Sources show both hard legal defeats for Caracas (annulment rejections) and pragmatic settlements (PDVSA’s 2018 deal), underscoring that Venezuela’s response has been a hybrid of litigation, limited accommodation, and political non-recognition designed to buy time, preserve assets and contest the practical reach of foreign judgments [3] [9] [5].