Geneva Agreement does not extinguish 1899 Arbitral Award – Guyana reaffirms

…rejects Venezuelan claims
…says will continue to defend sovereignty, territorial integrity

In commemorating the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Geneva Agreement, Guyana is underscoring the immense legal and diplomatic significance of this treaty, reminding that it is not a replacement for the 1899 Arbitral Award, which establishes the boundary with neighbouring Venezuela.
The Geneva Agreement was a response to Venezuela’s change of position in 1962 when, after 60 years of recognising the validity of the 1899 Award and the international boundary it established, it suddenly adopted a contrary position, claiming the Award was invalid.
Great Britain and then British Guiana, now Guyana, had rejected Venezuela’s abrupt turnabout, holding fast to their firm position on the legal validity and binding nature of the Award. Negotiations led to an agreement at Geneva on a peaceful procedure for resolving the controversy over the validity of the award.
The Geneva Agreement was signed between the United Kingdom and Venezuela on February 17, 1966, and subsequently acceded to by the independent State of Guyana on May 26, 1966. It is a binding international instrument deposited with the United Nations and grounded firmly in the principles of the United Nations Charter and the rule of international law.
Against this backdrop, Guyana, via a statement from the Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Ministry on Wednesday, firmly rejected assertions and misrepresentations that continue to emanate from official Venezuelan pronouncements which seek to distort the purpose and legal effect of the Geneva Agreement, deny the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or assert unfounded claims to Guyana’s sovereign territory.
“The Geneva Agreement does not extinguish the 1899 Arbitral Award, nor does it confer upon Venezuela the right to unilaterally determine the status of Guyana’s Essequibo region. Rather, it provides a clear and lawful pathway, before the International Court of Justice, for the definitive resolution of the controversy,” the Ministry stated.
Pursuant to Articles I to IV of the Geneva Agreement, successive mechanisms were put in place until a final resolution was achieved, including diplomatic negotiation by a Mixed Commission for four years, followed by recourse to the Secretary General of the United Nations to choose the next means of dispute settlement.
The Secretary-General initially chose mediation under his “good offices”, which endured from 1990 to 2017 without progress toward a resolution. In January 2018, the Secretary-General concluded that the “good offices” approach had failed to resolve the controversy, and, in accordance with Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, he chose adjudication by the ICJ as the next, and final, means of resolution. Both Guyana and Venezuela were bound by this decision.
Guyana accordingly instituted proceedings before the ICJ in March 2018, seeking a final and binding determination that the 1899 Arbitral Award is valid and that the land boundary established thereby remains legally binding on both Guyana and Venezuela.

Rejected Venezuela’s objection
Venezuela objected to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, but in a December 18, 2020 decision, the Court rejected Venezuela’s objection and affirmed that it has jurisdiction to entertain the case, finding that by conferring on the Secretary General the authority to choose the means of settlement, the parties had consented to judicial resolution by the Court. The World Court subsequently reaffirmed its competence to resolve the controversy in its 2023 Judgement on preliminary objections raised by Venezuela and has continued to exercise its judicial function in accordance with international law and the requisite rules of the Court.
According to the Foreign Ministry, Venezuela’s claims that the judicial process before the ICJ is inconsistent with the Geneva Agreement are equally untenable.
Guyana contends that “…as the Court expressly determined in rejecting Venezuela’s arguments, recourse to the Court flows directly from the express provisions of Article IV (2) of the said Agreement and from the decision of the United Nations Secretary General acting within the authority conferred upon him by both Parties pursuant to the provisions of that Agreement. The Court has thus found that it is the proper and lawful forum for the settlement of the controversy, and its eventual judgement will be final and binding upon both parties under international law.”
Both Guyana and Venezuela have already filed written pleadings on the merits of the case, and the ICJ has set May 4 for the commencement of oral arguments on the merits. It is anticipated that the World Court will rule on the matter sometime this year, and Guyana is confident in a “favourable” ruling.

Aggressive tactics
For decades, the Spanish-speaking nation has deployed a number of aggressive tactics against Guyana as it continues to lay spurious claims to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass – the entire Essequibo region and a portion of the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where successful oil operations are ongoing offshore.
The World Court has twice ordered, at Guyana’s request, provisional measures to preserve the status quo and ensure that neither party undertakes actions which might aggravate or extend the dispute pending its final judgement. Guyana has consistently complied with these orders and has called upon Venezuela to do likewise, in strict observance of its international obligations.
Nevertheless, Guyana has reiterated its commitment to the judicial process before the ICJ and to the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with international law.
“Guyana remains steadfast in its adherence to the principles of international law, the sanctity of treaties, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. For nearly six decades, Guyana has acted in good faith, respecting both the letter and spirit of the Geneva Agreement, while maintaining full compliance with its international obligations. Guyana will continue to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity through lawful and peaceful means and with full confidence in the impartial adjudication of the International Court of Justice,” the missive outlined.
Meanwhile, Guyana used the opportunity to call on Venezuela to recommit itself to the rule of international law, to respect the ongoing judicial process before the ICJ, and to refrain from actions or statements which may undermine peace and stability in the region.
It said, “The Government of Guyana reaffirms its enduring commitment to peaceful coexistence, mutual respect among nations, and the definitive judicial resolution of this controversy by the International Court of Justice in accordance with the 1966 Geneva Agreement and the Charter of the United Nations.”