The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday concluded the second day of oral hearings in the long-running border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela, with both sides presenting sharply opposing arguments over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that established the boundary between the two countries.
The proceedings, taking place at the Peace Palace in The Hague, form part of the merits phase of the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), during which the Court will examine the full legal arguments of both states before ultimately issuing a binding judgment.
In a statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, the Government of Guyana said it had asked the Court earlier this week to uphold the validity and binding effect of the 1899 Award, which legally fixed the boundary between then-British Guiana and Venezuela.
“Guyana argued that the Award constitutes a full, perfect and final settlement of the issue under international law and that the boundary it determined was recognized and implemented by Venezuela for more than 60 years before its belated challenge to it,” the ministry stated.
Guyana further contended that Venezuela’s claim to the territory west of the Essequibo River “is thus without legal foundation.”
The case centers on the Essequibo region, a vast territory representing more than two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass and rich in natural resources, including gold, timber, diamonds, and offshore oil reserves. The controversy dates back to the colonial era and intensified after Venezuela declared the 1899 Arbitral Award null and void in 1962, decades after previously accepting the boundary.
Guyana, under the David Granger administration, formally approached the ICJ in 2018 after the United Nations Secretary-General referred the matter to the Court under the 1966 Geneva Agreement. The Court subsequently ruled in 2020 that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.
During Wednesday’s hearings, Venezuela challenged both the Court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the 1899 Award, arguing that the arbitration process was tainted by fraud and collusion during the colonial period.
According to the ministry’s statement, Venezuela sought to argue that the 1966 Geneva Agreement effectively replaced the 1899 Award and established negotiation—not judicial settlement—as the mechanism for resolving the controversy.
“It sought to argue that the 1966 Geneva Agreement replaced the Award and provides the governing legal framework for resolving the controversy through a negotiated settlement between the parties, rather than a judicial determination,” the ministry said.
However, Guyana maintained that Venezuela’s arguments are fundamentally flawed and had already addressed those issues during its presentations on Monday.
International reporting from the hearings indicated that Venezuela reiterated its longstanding position that it does not recognise the ICJ’s jurisdiction and insists the controversy should be settled through direct bilateral negotiations.
Guyana, meanwhile, has argued that Venezuela’s territorial claim threatens its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national development.
Foreign Minister Hugh Todd told the Court earlier this week that Venezuela’s claim affects more than 70 per cent of Guyana’s territory and represents an existential threat to the country.
The oral hearings are expected to continue through next week.
Under the Court’s schedule, Guyana will present its rebuttal to Venezuela’s oral submissions on Friday, May 8, while Venezuela is scheduled to deliver its final round of arguments on Monday, May 11.
The ministry noted that after hearings conclude, the Court will begin deliberations before issuing its final judgment.
“The Court will then deliberate on the case, and ultimately issue its final Judgment, which will be legally binding on the parties,” the statement said.
While ICJ rulings are binding under international law, the Court itself has no direct enforcement mechanism and relies on compliance by states and, where necessary, the authority of the United Nations Security Council.
According to the ministry, a final judgment is not expected until later this year, as the Court’s deliberative process generally extends over several months.
