Distinguished international law professor Dr Nilufer Oral on Monday presented extensive historical and legal evidence before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) showing that Venezuela accepted and complied with the 1899 Arbitral Award for more than six decades, arguing that it is now legally barred from challenging its validity.
Professor Oral, a leading authority on the law of the sea, the Director of the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and a member of the UN International Law Commission, told the ICJ that from 1899 to 1962, Venezuela’s conduct was “constant, consistent and unequivocal”, with no objection raised to the award or the boundary it established.
“There were no deviations, not a single one throughout this period,” she stated.
Professor Oral demonstrated how Venezuela not only refrained from protesting the award but actively endorsed and implemented it. She noted that immediately after the award was issued in October 1899, Venezuelan officials celebrated the outcome as a success, particularly for securing control of the strategically vital mouth of the Orinoco River.
She further provided evidence to the court showing that Venezuela insisted on strict adherence to the boundary, even rejecting proposals that could have worked to its advantage if they deviated from the arbitral line.
“Venezuela did more than fail to protest; it demanded compliance with the award to the letter,” she told the ICJ.
The professor detailed Venezuela’s active role in the 1900–1905 joint boundary demarcation with Great Britain, which culminated in the 1905 Boundary Agreement. She described this process as a “collaborative and voluntary exercise”, noting there was no evidence of coercion, contrary to Venezuela’s current claims.
She cited official correspondence and reports showing Venezuelan officials took pride in the demarcation work and expressed satisfaction that the long-standing territorial dispute had been resolved.
Professor Oral also highlighted a consistent pattern of official conduct over decades, including the publication of at least 16 Venezuelan maps between 1911 and 1962, all reflecting the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement.
“We have found no official map showing a different boundary, none at all,” she said.
According to Professor Oral, this long-standing acceptance carries clear legal consequences under international law, particularly the principle that a state cannot later challenge an agreement it has consistently recognised and implemented.
She drew parallels with established ICJ jurisprudence, including cases where states were barred from disputing boundaries after years of acquiescence, noting that in Guyana’s case, Venezuela delayed its challenge for over 60 years, far longer than in comparable precedents.
“By 1962, it was simply too late,” she argued.
Oral rejected Venezuela’s claim that it only became aware of alleged defects in the award after 1949, stating that all such arguments were based on facts known at the time the award was issued.
She also dismissed the suggestion that the 1966 Geneva Agreement created a new legal basis to challenge the award, explaining that it merely acknowledged Venezuela’s claim without validating it.
“The evidence is resoundingly clear,” she said. “For more than 60 years, Venezuela accepted, recognised, and applied the award.”
The ICJ is expected to determine the validity of the 1899 Award and the legal boundary between Guyana and Venezuela at the conclusion of the hearings.
DPI
