A Closer Look at the ICJ’s 2023 Judgment in the Guyana-Venezuela Border Case

Territorial disputes rooted in colonial-era decisions continue to reverberate through the 21st century, often finding their way to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The judgment delivered by the ICJ on 6 April 2023 in the case Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) marks a significant chapter in one such dispute. At its core, this case involves the legitimacy of a century-old arbitral award demarcating the boundary between Guyana (formerly British Guiana) and Venezuela.

The ICJ’s ruling on Venezuela’s preliminary objection, which challenged the admissibility of Guyana’s application based on the alleged indispensability of the United Kingdom (UK) as a party, reflects the Court’s rigorous approach to treaty interpretation, jurisdictional clarity, and the principle of res judicata.

Background of the Dispute

1897 Washington Treaty and the 1899 Award

The seeds of the dispute lie in the late 19th century when the United Kingdom, then colonial ruler of British Guiana, and Venezuela clashed over territory between the Essequibo and Orinoco Rivers. Encouraged by the United States, both countries agreed to arbitration, resulting in the Treaty of Washington in 1897. An arbitral tribunal, established under this treaty, delivered an award on 3 October 1899, granting substantial territory to British Guiana.

The boundary was demarcated by a joint commission by 1904, and in 1905, an agreement was signed confirming the accuracy of this demarcation. However, Venezuela later repudiated the award, claiming it was the product of fraud and undue British influence.

Venezuela’s Repudiation and the Geneva Agreement of 1966

In 1962, Venezuela formally rejected the 1899 Award and sought redress. Tripartite talks among Venezuela, the UK, and British Guiana resulted in the signing of the Geneva Agreement on 17 February 1966. This agreement aimed to resolve the controversy peacefully, establishing a Mixed Commission and outlining steps for dispute resolution, including potential referral to an international organ, eventually the ICJ.

Guyana gained independence on 26 May 1966 and became a party to the Geneva Agreement. The Mixed Commission failed to resolve the issue by 1970, leading to a 12-year moratorium under the Protocol of Port of Spain. Negotiations continued without success, and in 2018, the Secretary-General of the United Nations referred the dispute to the ICJ, as permitted by Article IV(2) of the Geneva Agreement.

Procedural History and Venezuela’s Preliminary Objection

Guyana filed an application with the ICJ on 29 March 2018, requesting the Court to declare the 1899 Award valid and binding and to reaffirm Guyana’s sovereignty over the contested territory. Initially, Venezuela declined to participate, arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction.

The ICJ ruled in 2020 that it had jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the 1899 Award and the land boundary dispute but not over claims arising after the Geneva Agreement’s signing. Subsequently, Venezuela raised a preliminary objection in June 2022, asserting that the UK was an indispensable party, without whose consent the ICJ could not adjudicate the matter, relying on the Monetary Gold principle.

Arguments

The Indispensable Party Argument

Venezuela’s central contention was that the United Kingdom’s alleged misconduct in the 1899 arbitration process made it an indispensable third party. Venezuela argued that adjudicating the dispute would require the Court to assess the UK’s alleged fraudulent actions—coercion, communication with arbitrators, and submission of doctored maps—which would effectively pass judgment on a non-consenting state.

This objection was anchored in the ICJ's earlier jurisprudence, particularly the Monetary Gold case (1954), where the Court declined jurisdiction because the legal interests of a third party (Albania) formed the "very subject-matter" of the dispute.

Guyana’s Response

Guyana refuted this, arguing that the UK had relinquished all claims to the territory upon Guyana’s independence and that the Geneva Agreement placed the resolution of the controversy solely in the hands of Guyana and Venezuela. Guyana maintained that the ICJ’s focus should be on the arbitral tribunal’s conduct, not the UK's legal responsibilities, and that the UK’s participation in the Geneva Agreement implicitly waived its involvement in any future legal proceedings.

Guyana further argued that the objection was inadmissible and time-barred under Article 79bis of the ICJ’s Rules, as Venezuela had failed to raise it during earlier jurisdictional proceedings.

ICJ’s Reasoning and Judgment

Admissibility of the Preliminary Objection

The Court drew a clear distinction between jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. While the 2020 Judgment settled the existence of jurisdiction (res judicata), it did not address whether the Court could exercise jurisdiction in the UK's absence. Therefore, Venezuela’s objection was not barred.

The Court also held that the objection was raised within the time limit under Article 79bis and thus was admissible.

Rejection of the Preliminary Objection

In examining the objection, the Court applied treaty interpretation principles under Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, reflecting customary international law.

The ICJ emphasized that the Geneva Agreement was designed with Guyana’s impending independence in mind. Articles I and II of the Agreement assigned the responsibility of resolving the dispute to Venezuela and British Guiana (later Guyana), excluding any role for the United Kingdom. Article IV further confirmed that any failure to resolve the matter would allow Guyana and Venezuela—alone—to refer it to the UN Secretary-General, who could choose the means of dispute resolution.

The Court found that this design demonstrated the “common understanding” that the dispute would be resolved without UK involvement. Moreover, the UK had, over time, accepted this scheme, including in a tripartite examination of documents in the 1960s and by not participating in subsequent mechanisms, such as the good offices process.

Thus, the ICJ concluded that the legal interests of the United Kingdom were not the very subject-matter of the proceedings. The possibility that the Court might make findings involving British conduct did not render the UK indispensable. Venezuela’s reliance on the Monetary Gold principle was misplaced.

The Court unanimously rejected Venezuela’s preliminary objection.

ICJ Order on Provisional Measures – 1 December 2023

In response to Venezuela’s planned referendum on the Essequibo region, the ICJ granted Guyana’s request for provisional measures. The Court barred Venezuela from taking actions that could change the status quo and urged both nations to avoid steps that might escalate the dispute.

Significance of the Judgment

I) Reinforcement of Jurisdictional Framework

This ruling underscores the ICJ’s measured approach to jurisdiction, especially concerning third-party interests. The Court reaffirmed that the mere possibility of reputational or historical implication does not meet the Monetary Gold threshold. A third party must have direct, legal interests at stake.

II) Validity of the Geneva Agreement Process

By highlighting the Geneva Agreement’s structure and intention, the ICJ validated the decades-long framework for resolving the Guyana-Venezuela border dispute. This bolstered the UN Secretary-General’s authority under Article IV(2) to refer such disputes to the ICJ when peaceful bilateral means fail.

III) Precedential Value

The case provides valuable clarity on how the ICJ treats preliminary objections that concern the exercise rather than the existence of jurisdiction. The ruling also expands the body of jurisprudence, refining the Monetary Gold doctrine and its application.

IV) Diplomatic and Geopolitical Implications

This ruling allows Guyana to move forward in its efforts to confirm the validity of the 1899 Award, especially significant given the economic and strategic importance of the disputed Essequibo region, rich in natural resources. For Venezuela, the rejection of the objection means the merits phase of the case will proceed, keeping the spotlight on its long-contested territorial claims.

Conclusion

The ICJ’s 6 April 2023 judgment in the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) serves as a critical legal milestone in a dispute that has simmered for over a century. By rejecting Venezuela’s preliminary objection, the Court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to adjudicate the core issue—the validity of the 1899 Award—and reinforced the interpretative authority of the Geneva Agreement as the governing framework.

The judgment showcases the ICJ’s role as an arbiter of complex historical disputes and a guardian of international legal processes, providing a structured path forward in one of South America’s most enduring boundary controversies.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Important Link