Venezuela on Wednesday told judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that it does not recognise the court’s authority to hear its long-standing border controversy with Guyana.
Addressing the court, Venezuela’s Agent, Samuel Reinaldo Moncada Acosta, stated that Caracas rejects the ICJ’s jurisdiction and maintains that the matter should be resolved outside the court through direct negotiations.
On December 18, 2020, the ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, specifically regarding the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award.
The case was brought before the ICJ in keeping with a key procedural step under the 1966 Geneva Agreement. That agreement between Venezuela and the United Kingdom established a framework for resolving the territorial controversy, and when no settlement was reached, it empowered the United Nations Secretary-General to choose a means of peaceful settlement from options listed under the UN Charter.
In 2018, Secretary-General António Guterres exercised that authority and referred the matter to the ICJ, giving the court the basis to hear the case.
Venezuela, however, maintains that the Geneva Agreement does not amount to consent to judicial settlement and insists that only bilateral negotiations can resolve the controversy. Guyana argues the opposite, stating that the Secretary-General’s decision was binding and properly placed the matter before the court.
Presenting Guyana’s case on Monday, international law expert Dr Nilufer Oral argued that Venezuela is legally barred from challenging the 1899 Arbitral Award after accepting and implementing it for more than six decades.
She told the court that Venezuela’s conduct between 1899 and 1962 was “constant, consistent and unequivocal,” with no objections to the established boundary during that period.
Oral said Venezuela not only refrained from protesting the award but also effectively endorsed it by implementing the boundary, participating in demarcation works between 1900 and 1905, and issuing official maps over several decades that consistently reflected the same frontier. She noted that there was no evidence of any competing claim during that time, arguing that this long-standing acceptance carries binding legal consequences under international law.
Guyana is asking the court to confirm the legal validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the current boundary between the two states.
Moncada Acosta also argued that the Essequibo was historically Venezuelan, claiming that the Netherlands had occupied the region while it was still part of the Spanish Empire. Guyana has countered that historical evidence, including maps and place names, shows no Spanish presence in the area and supports Dutch and later British administration east of the Essequibo River.
The case continues on Friday, when Guyana resumes presenting its arguments.
