The International Court of Justice began hearing oral arguments early this morning in the landmark case filed by Guyana against Venezuela, challenging Venezuela’s claims over Guyana’s Essequibo region.
Guyana’s central legal argument before the ICJ is that the land boundary between the two nations was finally and definitively settled by the 1899 Arbitral Award.
Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation Hugh Todd argued on behalf of Guyana, contending that the full, perfect, and final settlement of the boundary occurred in 1899 when a tribunal composed of five judges from the UK, the US, and Russia unanimously determined the border.
Todd told the Court that for six decades following the award, Venezuela fully respected it without protest or challenge. He noted that the boundary established by the award was consistently reflected in Venezuela’s official acts, maps, legislation, and international agreements until at least 1962.
“For six decades, Venezuela fully respected with that award and that agreement. Throughout that period, they never protested or challenge the award or agreement, in fact, established and uncontested, Venezuela, consistently respected the award and the agreement in practice,” Todd stated.
Todd also pointed to the 1905 agreement in which both Venezuela and the UK—on behalf of British Guiana at the time—formally accepted and demarcated the border exactly as determined by the 1899 Award. For 60 years following that agreement, Venezuela respected this boundary without protest.
“It is Guyana’s submission that the 1899 award, without question is legally valid and binding on the parties and that the 1905 boundary agreement is legally valid and binding on the parties. It is Guyana’s submission, that none of the arguments Venezuela has raised prior and during these proceedings against the award of the agreement has any merit whatsoever and that Venezuela’s challenges to the award and the agreement are in any event a century too late to be raised as a matter of international law,” Todd declared.
Todd noted that the award and boundary demarcated have been the lawful border of the two countries and therefore Venezuela is obligated in international law to accept and respect that border and to refrain from any activity in Guyana’s territory.
The Foreign Minister described the oral hearings as a historic moment and a moment of truth for both Guyana and Venezuela. He recalled that more than eight years have passed since Guyana filed its application commencing the proceedings.
He expressed confidence that the Court will rule fairly and said Guyana will abide by its ruling.
Todd recounted Venezuela’s persistent attempts to prevent the case from reaching this stage, including objections to the court’s jurisdiction based on claims regarding the 1966 Geneva Agreement—arguments the court soundly rejected in its December 18, 2020 judgment. Venezuela also objected to the admissibility of Guyana’s claims, an effort the court resolutely rejected in its April 6, 2023 judgment.
“Unable to derail the case, Venezuela decided to take matters into its own hand. In late 2023, it purported to stage a so-called national referendum seeking popular support in rejecting the jurisdiction of the court and disassociating itself in advance in any judgement the court might issue on the merits of the case,” Todd noted.
Professor Pierre D’Argent of Belgium, the first counsel to argue on behalf of Guyana, addressed Venezuela’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction and its alleged misreading of the Geneva Agreement.
According to Professor D’Argent, Venezuela’s arguments are intended to postpone the resolution rather than achieve victory before the Court. He argued that Venezuela has set a trap for itself through its approach.
“Venezuela’s arguments against the Geneva agreement is intended to postpone this moment of truth, after 60 years however, this moment has arrived and nothing which the court has already said with regard to its jurisdiction and its exercise can be called into question by these argument,” Professor D’Argent argued.
Guyana is seeking to obtain a final and binding judgment from the Court that the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the location of the land boundary between then-British Guiana and Venezuela, remains valid and binding, and that Guyana’s Essequibo region belongs to Guyana, not Venezuela.
The oral arguments mark a pivotal moment in the long-running dispute, bringing the case to its merits phase after more than eight years of preliminary proceedings.
