A cause that requires precision
MVGA maintains that the Venezuelan claim on Guayana Esequiba deserves memory, diplomatic continuity and documentary defense. A national cause loses credibility when documents or sentences are attributed to it that do not say what it is intended to prove. Legal rigor allows us to support the Venezuelan position and explain where the controversy lies.
The litigation revolves around the arbitration award of October 3, 1899 and the border it established between Venezuela and the then British Guiana. Venezuela questions the validity of the award; Guyana supports it. The distinction between positions of the parties and decisions of the Court must be maintained throughout the discussion.
The Geneva Agreement
The Geneva Agreement was signed on February 17, 1966 by the governments of Venezuela and the United Kingdom, in consultation with that of British Guiana. It established a mechanism to seek a solution to the controversy arising from the Venezuelan claim of nullity of the award. Guyana became a party upon achieving its independence on May 26, 1966.
The agreement organizes a solution and recognizes the existence of a controversy. It does not contain a ruling that declares the award null and void or awards the territory to Venezuela. The claim can be defended without turning a party's argument into an already agreed outcome.
Arbitration and representation
Venezuela did not have an arbitrator of Venezuelan nationality in the 1899 court, but it was part of the 1897 arbitration treaty and was represented by American lawyers. The composition of the court, the negotiation, and complaints about the outcome are legitimate matters of inquiry. The formula "Venezuela did not participate" erases a representation that the file records.
A historical discussion should identify the nature of each document. A later memorandum expresses what its author stated; a treaty sets commitments; an award decides an issue; a party argument develops its thesis. None should be silently replaced by another.
The ICJ and the phases of the procedure
Guyana brought the case in 2018. The ICJ decided in 2020 that it had jurisdiction over the validity of the award and the related land border issue. In April 2023, it rejected the Venezuelan preliminary objection regarding the United Kingdom as an indispensable third party. These procedural decisions were not a ruling on the merits of territorial sovereignty.
Venezuela did participate in the November 2022 hearings on its preliminary objection: the 2023 ruling identifies its representatives and their oral arguments. It is incorrect to transfer the Venezuelan absence in the 2020 jurisdiction hearing to that phase. In the merits phase, the briefs of Guyana and Venezuela have different procedural positions: reply and rejoinder are not interchangeable documents.
The file consulted records that the hearings on the merits concluded on May 11, 2026. In the file accessible at the close of this edition, on October 13, 2026, no subsequent ruling on the merits was found. That statement describes the documentary consultation of this date; It does not predict the result or certify facts that could be published later.
A strategy that survives the government
The Venezuelan defense needs organized files, teams with continuity and the ability to explain the case to the population. Diplomacy must not be replaced by advertisements that confuse an aspiration with a determined degree. It also needs to respect peaceful mechanisms and avoid acts that increase the risk of conflict.
MVGA proposes to preserve the claim as a national matter, with public documents and a policy capable of surviving the situation. Sovereignty is not strengthened by exaggerating the evidence. It is strengthened when the country knows what it maintains, understands what the other party maintains and distinguishes each decision of the court.
Strategic patience does not mean forgetting. It means building a credible defense and sustaining it with institutional discipline. A reconstructed Venezuela must be able to discuss its territory firmly and speak precisely about its rights, its arguments and the limits of the procedure.
Sources and references
- ICJ, ruling of April 6, 2023, especially paras. 21 and 39-42 on participation and the Geneva Agreement.
- ICJ, case 171 and hearing record.
- UN, Geneva Agreement, register of treaties.
- ICJ, ruling on jurisdiction of December 18, 2020.