Response to Venezuela’s Propaganda claiming Guyana’s misinterpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement

Response to Venezuela’s Propaganda claiming Guyana’s misinterpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement

The letter from President Maduro to the Secretary-General of the UN dated 19th March, 2025, asserts that “the territorial issue of Essequibo, [which] has been dragged into the International Court of Justice without Venezuela’s consent, in open violation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement”.

President Maduro is wrong. His interpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement was thoroughly rejected by the International Court of Justice, in its ruling of December 18, 2020. In that ruling, the Court determined that the Agreement provided for the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela, over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award which established the boundary between the two countries, ultimately to be resolved by the Court.

As the Court found, the Geneva Agreement, signed by the United Kingdom and Venezuela in February 1966, and joined by Guyana upon its independence in May 1966, called for a four-year period of diplomatic negotiations to resolve the controversy created by Venezuela’s challenge, asserted for the first time in 1962, to the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that fixed the boundary between the two countries.

The Agreement further provided that, in the event diplomatic negotiations failed to resolve the controversy within four years, the parties would attempt to agree on one of the means of settlement listed in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, which includes judicial settlement. In the event they could not agree on the next means of settlement, the Agreement stipulated that they would leave the choice of that means of settlement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations would choose the means of settlement and this choice would be binding on the parties.

The Court found that this was clearly set forth in Article IV(2) of the Geneva Agreement, which provides that if:

“the Government of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela should not have reached agreement regarding the choice of one of the means of settlement provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agree or, failing agreement on this point, to the secretary General of the United Nations. If the means so chosen do not lead to a solution of the controversy, the said organ or, as the case may be, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall choose another of the means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, and so on, until the controversy has been resolved, or until all the means of peaceful settlement there contemplated have been exhausted.”

In accordance with the Agreement, diplomatic negotiations were held over a four-year period without success. Subsequently, Guyana and Venezuela were unable to agree on a means of settlement, and, in accordance with the Agreement, referred the matter to the UN Secretary General who proposed a Good Offices Process under his supervision for resolving the controversy. This procedure was followed for more than 20 years, but it failed to yield any progress toward a resolution.

On 30 January 2018, having received the final report on the Good Offices Process, with enhanced mediation during 2017, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres concluded that the Good Offices Process had failed to achieve progress toward a resolution of the controversy, and he decided, in accordance with Article IV(2) of the Geneva Agreement, that the next means of settlement would be  judicial settlement by the ICJ. The U.N. Secretary-General wrote letters to both parties informing them of his decision.

Pursuant to the decision of the Secretary-General, Guyana filed a case in the International Court of Justice on March 29, 2018 asking the Court to resolve the controversy with Venezuela in accordance with international law. Specifically, Guyana asked the Court to determine the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the resulting boundary between Guyana and Venezuela. Venezuela responded by challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to hear Guyana’s case.

The Court decided to address Venezuela’s challenge to its jurisdiction first, and it set a briefing schedule for the parties to submit their written pleadings on the question of jurisdiction. Venezuela submitted lengthy written pleadings to the Court setting out its position that the Geneva Agreement did not provide for resolution of the controversy by the Court, and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Guyana, relying on Article IV(2) of the Agreement and the decision of the UN Secretary-General, argued that the Agreement constituted the consent of both States to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court held oral hearings on the matter on 30 June 2020.

As indicated, the Court issued its Judgment on Jurisdiction on 18 December 2020, in which it rejected Venezuela’s arguments and found that it had jurisdiction over the controversy. In particular, the Court found that in the 1966 Geneva Agreement Guyana and Venezuela “mutually conferred upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations the authority to choose the means of settlement of the controversy and, on 30th January, 2018, the Secretary-General exercised this authority by choosing judicial settlement of the Court”. The Court continued:

“In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has been validly seised of the dispute between the Parties by way of the Application of Guyana.”

Specifically, the Court found that:

“it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the Co-operative Republic of Guyana on 29th March, 2018, in so far as it concerns the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3rd October, 1899, and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela”.

President Maduro and his government do not mention the Court’s Judgment on Jurisdiction, which, under the UN Charter, is binding on both Guyana and Venezuela, when they claim that the Geneva Agreement provides only for diplomatic negotiations, not judicial settlement. The fact is: this issue has been decided by the world’s highest judicial authority, the International Court of Justice. And it has been decided against Venezuela, whose interpretation of the Geneva Agreement has been thoroughly rejected by the Court.

Following the Court’s Judgment on Jurisdiction, it has proceeded to hear the parties’ cases on the merits of the controversy. Guyana has filed two written pleadings on the merits, and Venezuela has filed one, with its second pleading due in August 2025. Oral hearings are expected in the first half of 2026, following which the Court will deliberate on the case and issue its final Judgment on the Merits, which will be binding on the parties. Guyana has pledged to accept the Court’s Judgment whatever it might be.

March 31, 2025

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation

Guyana