{"id":29728,"date":"2026-05-04T18:14:41","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T22:14:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/?p=29728"},"modified":"2026-05-04T18:19:29","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T22:19:29","slug":"guyana-dismantles-venezuelas-objections-defends-1899-award-as-valid-and-binding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/guyana-dismantles-venezuelas-objections-defends-1899-award-as-valid-and-binding\/","title":{"rendered":"Guyana dismantles Venezuela\u2019s objections, defends 1899 Award as \u201cvalid and binding\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n\n

Guyana\u2019s legal team on Monday mounted a detailed and forceful defence of its case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), rejecting Venezuela\u2019s jurisdictional objections and reaffirming the legal validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award during oral hearings in Guyana v. Venezuela<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Leading the rebuttal on jurisdiction, Professor Pierre d\u2019Argent told the court that Venezuela\u2019s continued challenges to the court\u2019s authority reflect a \u201cmisreading\u201d of the 1966 Geneva Agreement and ignore prior rulings which have already settled the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor d\u2019Argent argued that the Court\u2019s jurisdiction has been conclusively affirmed, pointing to its December 2020 judgement and April 2023 ruling, both of which rejected Venezuela\u2019s objections and cleared the way for the current hearings on the merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cVenezuela should not be allowed to revisit issues already decided by this Court,\u201d d\u2019Argent stated, emphasising that the case has progressed to evaluating the validity of the 1899 Award and the boundary it set.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also representing Guyana is renowned international lawyer, Paul Reichler, who delivered a rigorous and historically comprehensive defence of the 1897 Treaty of Washington, the legal foundation for the arbitration that produced the 1899 Arbitral Award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reichler told the court that Venezuela\u2019s attempt to invalidate the Award by attacking the 1897 treaty is \u201centirely without basis\u201d, both in law and fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reichler outlined that Venezuela not only ratified the treaty in 1897 but also accepted and complied with the resulting Arbitral Award for more than 60 years before raising any formal objection in 1962.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe challenge comes not just decades, but generations too, late,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Addressing Venezuela\u2019s claim that the treaty was negotiated \u201cbehind its back\u201d, Reichler presented extensive historical records showing that Venezuelan representatives were directly involved in the negotiations and actively shaped key provisions, including those related to territorial claims and legal principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe documentary evidence completely refutes any suggestion of exclusion or collusion,\u201d he argued, noting that Venezuela itself expressed satisfaction with the treaty at the time and moved swiftly to ratify it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reichler also dismissed claims that Venezuela was misled or acted in error, pointing out that its government, legal advisers, and Congress all reviewed and approved the treaty, with officials describing it as fair and beneficial to the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the issue of arbitration, he said Venezuela\u2019s assertion that it was denied representation on the tribunal was contradicted by evidence showing it negotiated and secured a role in appointing arbitrators, ultimately choosing distinguished jurists aligned with its interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He further rejected arguments that the treaty was signed under coercion, stating that international law at the time did not recognise coercion as grounds for invalidating treaties and that, in any case, no evidence of coercion exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTo the contrary, Venezuela had long sought arbitration and welcomed the agreement when it was achieved,\u201d Reichler told the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He added that Venezuela\u2019s current argument of \u201cstructural coercion\u201d is inconsistent with its historical position, including repeated appeals to the United States to help secure arbitration with Great Britain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reichler concluded that there is \u201cno legitimate basis whatsoever\u201d to invalidate either the 1897 Treaty or the 1899 Arbitral Award, maintaining that the boundary established over a century ago remains legally binding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The presentations form part of Guyana\u2019s case as the ICJ considers the long-standing controversy over the Essequibo region, with a final ruling expected to determine the validity of the Award and the legal boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION PRESS RELEASE)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Guyana\u2019s legal team on Monday mounted a detailed and forceful defence of its case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), rejecting Venezuela\u2019s jurisdictional objections and reaffirming the legal validity…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":29729,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[469,350],"tags":[488,370,937,412,405],"class_list":["post-29728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-affairs","category-news","tag-488","tag-guyana","tag-guyana-venezuela-border-case","tag-ncn-guyana","tag-ncn-news"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29728"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29728\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29731,"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29728\/revisions\/29731"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29729"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ncnguyana.com\/2023\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}