THE CASE BETWEEN GUYANA AND VENEZUELA IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
THE CASE BETWEEN GUYANA AND VENEZUELA IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
This case is existential for Guyana. It concerns Venezuela’s rejection of the long-established international boundary and attempt to annex, and absorb into Venezuela, more than two-thirds of Guyana’s sovereign territory. Guyana brought the case to the ICJ to confirm the validity of the internationally recognized boundary, which was determined by an Arbitral Award in 1899, and by a 1905 boundary agreement with Venezuela that adhered strictly to the decision rendered by the unanimous arbitral tribunal.
Guyana brought the case in 2018 seeking a final judgment by the Court settling the controversy peacefully, finally and in accordance with international law. The written phase of the case will conclude in August 2025, to be followed by oral hearings. The Court’s judgment, which will be legally binding on both parties, is expected in 2026.
The case has become even more critical in the last year. Between January and April 2024, Venezuela issued decrees and laws purporting to annex and incorporate into Venezuela Guyana’s entire Essequibo Region, which borders Venezuela and constitutes nearly 70% of Guyana’s national territory. This was done in blatant defiance of international law and the Court’s Order, issued on 1 December 2023, that:
Pending a final decision in the case, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela shall refrain from taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute, whereby the Co-operative Republic of Guyana administers and exercises control over that area.
On January 7 President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela announced, in open disregard of the Court’s Order, that Venezuela will conduct elections in Guyana’s Essequibo Region – which Venezuela has renamed “Guayana Esequiba” – for the election of a governor and legislative council “by the people of Guayana Esequiba”. In the meantime, Venezuela has steadily built up its military forces in the border region. Further statements were made by President Maduro and the National Electoral Council announcing the date of the proposed elections – April 27, 2025. On February 5, 2025, President Maduro again announced the “we will hold elections in 24 states and for the first time, we will elect a governor for the state of Guayana Esequba, along with legislative council and deputies.”
Guyana thus faces an imminent risk of military aggression by Venezuela to seize and annex the majority of its national territory. Its best defence is the rule of law, and the support of the international community for a peaceful, just, permanent and binding resolution of the controversy in conformity with international law – to be determined by the world’s pre-eminent judicial authority, the International Court of Justice. Guyana has notified the Court of the foregoing announcements in letters dated January 9 and February 7, 2025, respectively.
A. THE ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY
The controversy that exists between Guyana and Venezuela began with Venezuela’s rejection, in 1962, of the 1899 Arbitral Award, rendered unanimously by five distinguished arbitrators, that delimited the land boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela. Significantly, Venezuela accepted and implemented the Award, and scrupulously respected the boundary, for more than 60 years. In 1962, Venezuela took advantage of the impending independence of Guyana, and the anticipated weakness of the new State after the departure of British troops, to claim – for the very first time – that the Award was invalid and the boundary was unsettled, and it resurrected its antiquated claim – rejected by the arbitrators – to Guyana’s Essequibo Region.
In 1966, shortly before Guyana became independent, the United Kingdom and Venezuela reached an agreement – the 1966 Geneva Agreement – to establish a mechanism for reaching a peaceful, final and binding resolution of the controversy created by Venezuela’s belated challenge to the 1899 Award. The Agreement provided that Guyana would become a party upon its independence, which occurred in May of that year.
The Geneva Agreement established a four-year timetable for Guyana and Venezuela to negotiate a solution to the controversy. It provided in the event negotiations were unsuccessful (which they were), the parties would attempt to reach an agreement on a formal means of settlement, and if they failed to reach such an agreement (which they did), the Secretary-General of the United Nations would be empowered to choose the means of settlement, and the parties would be bound by his decision.
The Secretary-General first decided that the means of settlement would be a Good Offices Process by a Personal Representative appointed by him and acting under his supervision. This process lasted from 1990 to 2017 under a succession of Personal Representatives and Secretaries-General. Despite the commitment and time of these Secretaries-General and their appointees, no substantive progress was made toward a settlement of the controversy. Guyana insisted on the validity of the 1899 Award and the resulting boundary, and Venezuela insisted on their invalidity. Outside the Good Offices Process, Venezuela’s actions in the border area became increasingly aggressive. Violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by Venezuela’s armed forces were more frequent, and a part Guyanese territory – Ankoko – was seized by Venezuela and remains to this day under Venezuelan occupation.
When his term ended in December 2016, Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon recommended to his successor, Antonio Guterres, that he continue with mediation efforts for one more year, after which he should exercise his powers under the 1966 Geneva Agreement to decide that, the Good Offices Process having failed to resolve the controversy, the next means of settlement should be adjudication by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Secretary-General Guterres accepted this recommendation and the mediation continued until the end of 2017. With no progress made toward a resolution, the Secretary-General decided in January 2018 that the controversy should be resolved by the ICJ. In March 2018, Guyana filed an Application with the ICJ instituting proceedings against Venezuela, in which it asked the Court to determine that the 1899 Award is valid and binding on both States, and that the lawful international boundary is the one established by the Award.
B. THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Soon after Guyana filed its Application, Venezuela protested that the Court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the controversy. The Court decided that it would first determine whether it has jurisdiction and set a schedule for each party to address this issue in written briefs, followed by oral hearings, which were held on 30 June 2020. Six months later, on 18 December 2020, the Court issued its decision. By overwhelming majority, it decided that it had jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, in the 1966 Geneva Agreement, to allow the Secretary-General to decide upon the means of settlement, and the Secretary-General’s decision that this would be the ICJ. The Court declared that it would hear the case on the merits and then, after due deliberation, issue a final judgment on the validity of the 1899 Award and the international boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.
In March 2022, in accordance with the schedule fixed by the Court, Guyana filed its Memorial on the merits of the case. In response, Venezuela again sought to have the case dismissed without a decision on the validity of the 1899 Award or the boundary, by filing preliminary objections to the admissibility of Guyana’s claims and urging the Court to exercise its discretion to refuse to rule on them. The Court received written statements and heard oral pleadings from Guyana and Venezuela on Venezuela’s objections. In April 2023, it gave its judgment on Venezuela’s objections, rejecting them by 14 votes to one. Only the Judge ad hoc appointed by Venezuela dissented.
In welcoming the Court’s decision, the President of Guyana, Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali, explained: “this means the Court will now proceed to decide the dispute between the two States on the merits, and ultimately issue a final and binding determination on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that fixed the land boundary between Venezuela and the then British Guiana.”
President Ali emphasised that Guyana remained confident that its longstanding international boundary would be confirmed by the Court, but also pledging that Guyana would accept and abide by the Court’s judgment whatever it might provide, adding that “all Member states of the United Nations, including Guyana and Venezuela, are obligated under the United Nations Charter to comply with the Court’s binding Judgements.”
Venezuela reacted differently. Its efforts to derail the case and avoid a judgment on the merits having failed, it adopted an openly hostile attitude toward the Court, as well as a plan to seize and incorporate the Essequibo Region into Venezuela before the Court could issue its decision.
In furtherance of this plan, the Venezuelan National Assembly adopted a resolution on 21 September 2023 calling for a ‘Consultative Referendum’ regarding Venezuela's ‘claim’ to Guyana's Essequibo region. On 23 October 2023, Venezuela published five questions to be answered by the people of Venezuela in the so-called “referendum”, scheduled for 3 December 2023. Two of the more ominous questions that were put to the Venezuelan people sought to determine whether they agree with “the creation of a state of Guayana Esequiba” composed of Guyana’s Essequibo Region, the incorporation of that “state” into the map of Venezuela, and Venezuela’s “historical position of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice” as the means of settlement of the controversy.
Guyana immediately condemned these acts as threats to its sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, in violation of the Charters of the United Nations and Organization of American States (OAS), as well as the 1966 Geneva Agreement and the Secretary-General’s 2018 binding decision that the border between Guyana and Venezuela and sovereignty over Guyana’s Essequibo Region should be determined by the ICJ. Venezuela’s actions also drew condemnation from the OAS, the Commonwealth and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
Fully committed to the judicial resolution of the controversy by the ICJ, Guyana sought the protection of the Court. It filed a Request for Provisional Measures, in the form of an Order that Venezuela refrain from taking the actions called for by the “referendum”, including especially “creation” of a new Venezuelan state consisting of Guyana’s Essequibo Region and incorporating it into Venezuela’s territory, and granting Venezuelan citizenship or identity cards to the population, because these actions would amount to an unlawful annexation of Guyana’s territory.
The Court held oral hearings on Guyana’s request on 14-15 November 2023, and issued its Order on 1 December 2023 unanimously granting that request. As indicated above, the Court ordered that “the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela shall refrain from taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute, whereby the Co-operative Republic of Guyana administers and exercises control over that area.” The Court further ordered that: “Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.”
C. VENEZUELA’S CONTINUING DISREGARD FOR THE ICJ AND THE RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
It took Venezuela only four days to defy and flagrantly violate the Court’s Order.
On 5 December 2023, two days after the ‘referendum’ was conducted, the Venezuelan National Assembly announced its intention to enact legislation to formally incorporate Guyana’s Essequibo Region into Venezuela and:
1. Grant Venezuelan citizenship to the population (all of whom are Guyanese nationals);
2. Order the execution of a census in Guyana’s Essequibo Region and issuance of Venezuelan identification cards to the population;
3. Formally establish the “Integral Defense Zone of Guyana Esequiba”.
4. Terminate all concessions in the Essequibo Region and adjacent maritime area issued by Guyana, giving Guyana’s licensees a deadline of three months to vacate the area;
5. Direct Venezuelan state entities to issue new licenses for oil, gas and mining exploration and exploitation;
6. Develop a “social attention plan” for the population of Guyana’s Essequibo Region; and
7. Order the publication of a new official map of Venezuela incorporating Guyana’s Essequibo Region.
The crisis produced by Venezuela’s actions led the leaders of CARICOM and CELAC to invite the Presidents of Guyana and Venezuela to meet on 14 December 2023, at Argyle in St Vincent and the Grenadines, for the purpose of reducing the tensions that had arisen from those actions. The “Joint Declaration of Argyle for Dialogue and Peace between Guyana and Venezuela” resulted from that meeting. Most significantly, the Parties agreed in their Joint Declaration not to threaten or use force against one another in any circumstances and to resolve their disagreements in accordance with international law, including the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
Guyana’s expectation that the Declaration would produce a de-escalation of tension between the two countries was short lived. Venezuela soon resorted to a series of aggressive actions. These included the deployment of armoured personnel carriers, battle tanks, and patrol boats to Ankoko (the island through which the international boundary between Venezuela and Guyana passes, the eastern portion of which belongs to Guyana but was seized by Venezuela in 1966), and an exponential increase in the presence of Venezuelan troops along the border. Compounding this threat to Guyana, Venezuela constructed a bridge connecting the Venezuelan mainland to Ankoko Island. The completion of this bridge in December 2024, significantly bolsters Venezuela's military capabilities, enhancing offensive strategies. This strategic infrastructure transforms the island into a strategic stronghold overlooking Guyana. This was followed by Venezuela’s illegal interception and boarding of a Brazilian vessel in the Wenamu River, on Guyana’s side of the border, and the detention of a Guyana Defence Force-operated vessel near Eteringbang, also inside Guyanese territory. Guyana quickly brought these actions to the attention of the international community to demonstrate that its people, particularly those living in the border regions, are living day-to-day under the threat of armed conflict.
On 3 April 2024, Venezuela promulgated its “Organic Law in Defence of Guayana Esequiba” carrying out the policy announced by the National Assembly the previous December. This law purports to formally create the ‘Guayana Esequiba’ state comprised of Guyana’s Essequibo region, with legislative and executive officials to be chosen in an election under Venezuela’s auspices. The “Organic Law” also provides for a High Commission for the defence of the territory, the implementation of social programs for the local population, and administrative units for oil, mining and industrial activities, inter alia.
Dangerously, and in reflection of Venezuela’s rejection of the ICJ and the rule of international law, Article 6 of the “Organic Law” states that:
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will not submit to dispute resolution mechanisms by third parties, including arbitrations and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, matters related to its independence and territorial integrity…. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will use the procedural means available to reject the claims of any court or tribunal, including arbitral tribunals and the International Court of Justice, to attribute jurisdiction to hear or resolve matters related to its independence and territorial integrity.
On 9 April 2024, the United Nations Security Council accepted Guyana's request for a private meeting of the Council, to address the promulgation of Venezuela’s “Organic Law,” and specifically its provision to annex more than two-thirds of Guyana’s sovereign territory and make it part of Venezuela. This meeting led to a statement by the Security Council on 15 April 2024 expressing concern about the escalation of tensions between Venezuela and Guyana, urging the parties to exercise maximum restraint, and reminding them of their obligations to comply with the Order on Provisional Measures issued by the ICJ on 1 December 2023.
The Security Council also underlined the importance of maintaining regional peace and security and ensuring that the Latin America and Caribbean region remains a Zone of Peace. The members of the Council reaffirmed the importance of upholding the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every State, and the prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State, as enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.
In open disregard of the Security Council (as well as the ICJ and the Joint Declaration of 14 December 2023), Venezuela continued its aggressive actions against Guyana in the border region, including military exercises showcasing its military might. These activities, which included paratrooping and air defence drills, training at Ankoko Island, and the provocatively named “Essequibo is Ours” Exercise involving fighter jets and helicopters, were pointed reminders of Venezuela’s territorial ambitions.
Most recently, as indicated above, President Maduro made a public statement announcing Venezuela’s plan to hold elections this year in “Guayana Esequiba,” in which “the people of “Guayana Esequiba” will elect a “Governor of Guyana Esequiba State.” This portends an effort by Venezuela to carry out governmental activities – elections - within Guyana’s sovereign territory. It would be the most blatant and threatening act of aggression by Venezuela thus far, and it would be tantamount to the physical takeover of an integral part of Guyana.
Guyana immediately brought this threat to the attention of the United Nations Secretary General and the Secretaries General of CARICOM and the Commonwealth. Guyana also brought the statement to the attention of the ICJ, emphasizing that it considers President Maduro’s statement both an affront to its sovereignty and its territorial integrity, and an offense against the Order of the Court of 1 December 2023. Guyana also appealed to the international community at large to use its influence with Venezuela to persuade it to refrain from unilateral actions to change the status quo pending the final resolution of the controversy by the ICJ, and to respect and abide by the final judgment of the Court, whatever it may be (as Guyana has already pledged to do).
Guyana remains, and will remain, committed to the peaceful resolution of the controversy in accordance with international law, as determined by the ICJ. On 9 December 2024, Guyana submitted to the Court its final written brief on the merits. Venezuela’s final written submission is due to be filed on 11 August 2025. Guyana looks forward to the receipt of Venezuela’s legal arguments, and to engaging with Venezuela at the oral hearings that will be scheduled by the Court soon thereafter.
Guyana also remains, and will remain, committed to the ICJ as the means of settlement of this controversy, as well as to establishing and maintaining friendly relations with Venezuela through the diplomatic process which began at Argyle in December 2023. Guyana is also committed to the fulfilment of its international humanitarian obligations to the thousands of migrants from Venezuela who have been seeking refuge and assistance within our borders.
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
21 February 2025