On July 1, 2025, the Venezuelan National Assembly declared Volker Türk, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights, a “persona non grata.”.[1] Although the direct impact of the decision is limited, it is noteworthy as an important development in terms of Venezuela’s relations with the UN and international cooperation in the field of human rights.
Venezuela’s relationship with UN human rights mechanisms has been turbulent since the 2000s. The death of Hugo Chavez in 2013 and Nicolas Maduro’s ascension to the presidency marked the beginning of a new era in the country. During this period, increasing economic hardship, social protests, and political polarization drew international attention to the country.
In 2019, then-High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet visited Venezuela and published a report on the human rights situation, which was supported by some circles but criticized by the government. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the UN’s humanitarian aid and health cooperation initiatives came to the fore, and the Venezuelan government cooperated partially with international organizations on some issues.
However, human rights reports have always been a sensitive issue for the government. During the 2022-2024 period, a UN Human Rights Office was opened in Caracas and technical support programs were implemented. Nevertheless, the emphasis on sovereignty and the approach that national issues are closed to external intervention has remained one of the fundamental elements of Venezuela’s diplomatic line.
The term “persona non grata” is a concept found in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which defines a state’s authority to refuse entry to a diplomatic representative it does not want. According to the Convention, states are not required to justify their declarations of “persona non grata.” This practice, observed in diplomatic relations between states, generally carries a political message.[2]
Representatives of UN members and UN officials have a different legal status. According to the 1946 UN Convention on Privileges and Immunities, UN personnel have the right to perform their duties independently and enjoy immunity. Therefore, while the declaration of a “persona non grata” may reflect a state’s political response, it does not automatically terminate the representative’s authority from a legal standpoint. The practical consequences of such a declaration are often determined through negotiations between the state and the United Nations.
From this perspective, Venezuela’s decision is primarily symbolic in nature and does not automatically lead to the Commissioner’s dismissal under international law. However, in practice, the host state may impose restrictions on the representative’s field activities or make the office’s working conditions more difficult.
How the decision will be implemented in the short term depends on several possibilities. In the first scenario, the Venezuelan government may allow the UN Human Rights Office to continue its presence in Caracas, but may restrict the scope of its activities. In this case, the scope and reliability of reporting activities may be partially affected.
In the second scenario, the office could be closed completely or the Commissioner could be officially banned from entering Venezuela. This approach could make international criticism of the country’s human rights record more visible.
The third and more likely scenario is that the door to dialogue will not close completely, but cooperation will be significantly restricted. The message of “goodwill dialogue” emphasized in the UN statements shows that this option is still on the table.
Venezuela’s decision is an important example in terms of how human rights monitoring mechanisms are perceived in Latin America. Similar situations have occurred in the past in Nicaragua and Cuba. While some governments in the region view international reporting as independent assessment, others characterize it as interference in their sovereignty.
Venezuela’s longstanding defense of a multipolar international order and its distanced approach to Western institutions reinforce the political significance of such decisions. The reactions of the United States and the European Union at the global level may further clarify Venezuela’s current position in foreign policy.
The issue of migration is also a significant factor. In particular, the migration of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans to neighboring countries in recent years has increased the importance of fieldwork by UN agencies. Therefore, despite the decision, it is likely that some technical humanitarian aid processes will continue.
Another important aspect of this development is the careful choice of diplomatic language used by the parties in their public statements. While UN statements often emphasize “goodwill dialogue” and “cooperation,” the Venezuelan government justifies its decision with rhetoric about “preserving sovereignty” and “defending national dignity.” These contrasting discourses not only influence international legal debates but also shape perception management within domestic public opinion and at the regional level. The concepts employed by the parties can be interpreted as part of a broader quest for political legitimacy beyond the purely legal dimensions of the issue. Therefore, communication strategies will continue to be a decisive factor in both resolving the issue and escalating tensions in the coming period.
The declaration of Volker Türk as persona non grata represents a new phase in the long-standing tension between Venezuela and the UN. Although the legal validity of the decision is somewhat controversial, its symbolic impact is strong. Venezuela’s approach to international observers in the field of human rights in the coming period will affect both the country’s foreign relations and the effectiveness of UN mechanisms.
In conclusion, past experiences showing that the Venezuelan government may be open to cooperation in some areas reduce the likelihood of a complete breakdown in dialogue. This development once again highlights the delicate balance that exists between state sovereignty and universal human rights standards in the eyes of the international community.
[1] “Venezuelan Lawmakers Declare UN Human Rights Official Turk Persona Non Grata.” Reuters, Reuters, www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuelan-lawmakers-declare-un-human-rights-official-turk-persona-non-grata-2025-07-01/, (Accessed Date: 07.06.2025).
[2] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. United Nations, 18 Apr. 1961, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 500, p. 95. PDF file, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf, (Accessed Date: 07.06.2025).
