Guyana’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) moved into legal focus on Monday as its team of international attorneys systematically challenged Venezuela’s arguments, setting the stage for what could be a decisive ruling on the long-standing border controversy.
At the centre of the legal exchanges were two key presentations: a detailed rebuttal of Venezuela’s jurisdictional objections by Professor Pierre d’Argent, and a forceful defence of the 1899 Arbitral Award by renowned international lawyer Paul Reichler.
Together, they agreed that the court has the authority to decide the case, and the decades-old boundary remains legally valid.
Professor d’Argent opened by addressing Venezuela’s continued attempts to question the court’s authority to hear the case, arguing that those efforts are not new and have already been rejected.
He told the court that Venezuela’s position has been built on a weak foundation from the start.
“This claim of invalidity was… made without any serious and detailed studies… instinctively, emotionally and thoughtlessly,” he said, referencing Venezuela’s own statements from 1966.
According to d’Argent, Venezuela has spent decades trying to reinforce that claim but has failed to produce credible legal backing.
“After so many years… this claim has become an article of faith,” he said, suggesting that political pressure, not law, now sustains the argument.
He argued that Venezuela’s latest submissions are simply another attempt to delay a final ruling.
“This moment, however, has arrived,” he told the court.
In clear and accessible terms, d’Argent explained that the ICJ has already ruled on the core issue of jurisdiction — meaning it has the authority to decide whether the 1899 award is valid.
He pointed judges back to earlier rulings in 2020 and 2023, which confirmed that the dispute centres on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the legal boundary between Guyana and Venezuela
“The controversy… concerns the question of the validity of the 1899 award,” he reminded the court, quoting its own judgment.
He argued that Venezuela is now trying to reinterpret the 1966 Geneva Agreement to avoid that conclusion but that interpretation has already been rejected.
In one of the more pointed moments, d’Argent highlighted language from Venezuela’s submissions suggesting that a court ruling could “exacerbate” the dispute.
“It is difficult to read these words other than seeing them as a form of intimidation,” he said.
Despite this, he expressed confidence that the court would proceed based on law, not pressure.
A major part of Guyana’s case involved simplifying a complex legal argument around the Geneva Agreement often cited by Venezuela.
D’Argent explained that the agreement did not settle the dispute or replace the 1899 award. Instead, it created a pathway to resolve the controversy, including through the ICJ.
“The sole effect of the Geneva Agreement was… to allow a discussion on the subject of the validity of the award,” he said.
In essence, the agreement opened the door to this very case rather than closing it.
Building on that foundation, Paul Reichler, one of the world’s leading international litigators, took on the core of the dispute: the legality of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the 1897 Treaty of Washington.
Reichler told the court that Venezuela’s position collapses under the historical record.
He said Venezuela had not only pushed for arbitration with Great Britain, but also relied heavily on the United States to pressure Britain into agreeing to that process.
“Venezuela requested the protection of the United States in order to resist Great Britain’s conduct and reach a peaceful solution to the territorial dispute,” Reichler said, quoting Venezuela’s own pleadings.
He argued that Venezuela cannot now claim it was excluded, deceived or coerced into a treaty it actively sought and later celebrated.
According to Reichler, Venezuela accepted, respected and complied with the 1899 Award for more than 60 years. Its first formal challenge to the award came only in 1962, and its attack on the 1897 Treaty came even later.
“It was not until 1963, 66 years after it ratified the treaty, that Venezuela first began to find fault with it,” he told the court.
Reichler also rejected Venezuela’s claim that the treaty was negotiated “behind Venezuela’s back” by the United States and Great Britain.
He said the documentary record shows the opposite: Venezuela’s representatives were consulted, their concerns were advanced by the United States, and the final treaty was approved by Venezuela’s government and Congress.
“The evidence makes clear that the United States did not contravene Venezuela’s position,” Reichler said.
He also dismissed Venezuela’s claim that it had been coerced into signing the treaty, noting that Venezuela’s own president at the time described the agreement as being presented with “no coercive intent” and with respect for Venezuela’s sovereignty.
“How can they say they were coerced?” Reichler asked.
For Guyana, the legal argument is that Venezuela asked for arbitration, accepted the treaty, participated in the process, respected the award for decades, and cannot now invalidate the outcome because it no longer suits its claim.
“The bottom line,” Reichler told the court, “is that Venezuela cannot come up with any legitimate basis whatsoever for invalidating the 1897 treaty.”
Guyana is asking the ICJ to confirm the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the boundary it established.
The post ICJ hearings: Guyana dismantles Venezuela’s position with historical records appeared first on News Room Guyana.
