ICJ ruling will not change our position on Essequibo – Venezuela tells World Court

May 07, 2026 News

---

…says ruling in Guyana’s favour will further poison relationship between two neighbours

(Kaieteur News) – Attorney representing Venezuela, Professor Makane Moïse Mbengue told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday that a ruling in Guyana’s favor will not change the country’s claim to the Essequibo region.

His submission followed oral arguments by Guyana’s legal team on Monday before the world court at the Hague Netherlands. Guyana approached the ICJ seeking the court’s confirmation that the 1899 Arbitral Award, established the international boundary between the two South American neighbours, and has requested a decree that the boundary is legally valid and remains binding on both states under international law.

Responding to Guyana’s submission in the border case, the Professor Mbengue sought to bring Venezuela’s position into perspective.

He told the ICJ that “the 1899 award might be relevant, it may offer context, it is after all the wound that the Geneva agreement was designed to heal, but it certainly does not follow that the award should be permitted to stand in the way of a genuine resolution of the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela. Jurisdiction to entertain a question is not an obligation to answer it and certainly not an obligation not to answer it when doing so.”

Mbengue continued that “Affirming the validity of the award would also leave the underlying controversy unresolved; whilst it would leave the states relationship irremediably poisoned and reduce the Geneva agreement to nothing…”

To avoid such a situation, the lawyer noted that the court needs to be cognisant of the real issue in this case. “What then, Mr. president, is the real issue in this case? The answer is plain. It is the pursuit of an amicable, practical and mutually satisfactory resolution of the controversy born of the unjust 1899 awards. This is what the Geneva agreement requires, what its parties have consented to,” Mbengue submitted.

“That real issue is the pursuit of a mutually satisfactory solution to the controversy generated by the 1899 Award, a solution that consigned this artifact of British imperialism to the past where it belongs, and that shuts a way forward. This is the only proper meaning of the Geneva agreement. It is as though, so far, the only interpretation on the record for the simple reason that Guyana has offered none.”

Nevertheless, Professor Mbengue told the court that Guyana’s position is understandable.  He said that Guyana “It is, after all, the lucky heir to a deeply revolting award in which it played no part but Guyana is also the heir to an agreement that left that award behind in the hope of finding a just solution to a territorial controversy.”

In his submission before the world court, Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the United Nations Samuel Reinaldo Moncada Acosta emphasised on the issue of the court’s jurisdiction.

He noted that for nearly a century, Venezuela has consistently maintained that matters relating to its territorial integrity cannot be submitted to third party dispute resolution mechanisms.  He stressed that this stance is not circumstantial, nor is it strategic.

“It is structural. It is an integral part of its international conduct, its domestic legal system, and its conception of how its most essential interests must be protected. That position has not changed. Venezuela has never consented to submitting this dispute to the jurisdiction of any court or arbitral tribunal, “Acosta explained.

According to him, Venezuela’s distrust for third party dispute resolutions is rooted in historic and adverse experience which he claims led to the loss of the valuable Essequibo region.   The UN representative for Venezuela told the court that the act was also grounded in the British Empire need to justify its territorial greed in the quest for gold.

He stated, “Our territorial rights over Guyana Essequiba were systematically eroded during the 19th century by the British Empire, which sought to appropriate half of our territory.”

According to Acosta, despite attempts at direct, peaceful, diplomatic negotiations, the voracious British Empire, the largest empire in the world in the 19th century, could not satisfy its own greed.

“It was only the intervention of the United States of America in 1895 that forced the British to accept arbitration although Venezuela entrusted the fate of its territory to the supposed goodwill of the United States. Unfortunately, the United States was not acting as a mediator to help Venezuela, but rather to impose its own will across the entire continent and to force the British Empire to recognise it as the new power.”

He said as a result, the fraudulent award was imposed by the two most powerful nations in the world. “This marked the climax of the infamous gunboat diplomacy and the treaties imposed by force in Asia, Africa and Latin America…All of these experiences endured by our people has taught us to strive for peace, but always without expecting favours from large powers or miraculous results from rigged international arbitrations.”

Acosta continued, “This is what led to our tradition of not recognising the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals or courts of any kind when it comes to matters relating to our territorial integrity. This is why Venezuela does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which was erroneously imposed in the 2020 judgment. It respectfully rejects its jurisdiction to hear and decide on this dispute.”

In response to Guyana’s submission, the Venezuelan politicians refuted allegation that his country has sought to stymie Guyana’s development.

He highlighted the fact; Venezuela’s good faith and neighbourly spirit are clear in the joint development proposals that are extremely beneficial for Guyana in 2009.

“For example, Venezuela and Guyana entered into rice for oil swap agreement, and that was renewed up until 2015 in that agreement, Venezuela purchased rice from Guyana at a price above market value, and it sold its oil at a price below market value. Experts from the Inter-American Development Bank concluded that for Guyana, the cost of its oil imports had gone down, as had its total public debt considerably. That was thanks to the generous long term financing terms offered by the Petrocaribe agreement.”

“Venezuela has never been an obstacle to Guyana’s development, as has been claimed in this very chamber. On the contrary, Guyana has benefited from Venezuela’s solidarity policies, which have also been offered to other countries in the Caribbean region. Venezuela can simply not be accused of not being a good neighbour,” the politician stated.

---

• Essequibo, ICJ, Samuel Reinaldo Moncada Acosta, Venezuela

---