–in strong response to President Maduro’s UN letter

THE Government of Guyana, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, has issued a strong rebuttal to recent claims by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro that Guyana has misinterpreted the 1966 Geneva Agreement regarding the longstanding territorial controversy over the Essequibo region.

President Maduro, in a letter dated March 19, 2025, addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), António Guterres, asserted that the territorial issue concerning Essequibo was “dragged into the International Court of Justice (ICJ) without Venezuela’s consent, in open violation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.”

Guyana has categorically rejected this claim, asserting that Venezuela’s interpretation has already been rejected by the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the UN.
“President Maduro is wrong. His interpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement was thoroughly rejected by the International Court of Justice, in its ruling of December 18, 2020,” the ministry noted.
In a detailed response, the ministry emphasised that the ICJ, in its December 18, 2020 ruling, decisively upheld the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the controversy between the two states over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, which definitively established the land boundary between then British Guiana and Venezuela.

In that ruling, the World Court determined that the agreement provided for the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela over the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award which established the boundary between the two countries, ultimately to be resolved by the Court.

The ministry emphasised that President Maduro’s letter to the UN Secretary-General attempts to portray the Geneva Agreement as excluding the use of judicial settlement.
However, it reminded that the court has already ruled otherwise. The ICJ, in its 2020 judgment, made it clear that the Geneva Agreement, signed between the United Kingdom and Venezuela in February 1966 and acceded to by Guyana upon gaining independence in May 1966, does, in fact, contemplate judicial settlement as a valid path to resolving the controversy.

The ministry emphasised: “As the court found, the Geneva Agreement, signed by the United Kingdom and Venezuela in February 1966, and joined by Guyana upon its independence in May 1966, called for a four-year period of diplomatic negotiations to resolve the controversy created by Venezuela’s challenge, asserted for the first time in 1962, to the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that fixed the boundary between the two countries.

“The Agreement further provided that, in the event diplomatic negotiations failed to resolve the controversy within four years, the parties would attempt to agree on one of the means of settlement listed in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, which includes judicial settlement. In the event they could not agree on the next means of settlement, the Agreement stipulated that they would leave the choice of that means of settlement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations who would choose the means of settlement and this choice would be binding on the parties.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation specifically pointed to Article IV(2) of the Agreement which states: “If the Government of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela should not have reached agreement regarding the choice of one of the means of settlement provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agree or, failing agreement on this point, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

“If the means so chosen do not lead to a solution of the controversy, the said organ or, as the case may be, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall choose another of the means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, and so on, until the controversy has been resolved, or until all the means of peaceful settlement there contemplated have been exhausted.”
In accordance with the agreement, Guyana and Venezuela engaged in over two decades of Good Offices efforts under the Secretary-General’s auspices, in an attempt to find a peaceful diplomatic resolution. However, on January 30, 2018, after the process failed to produce meaningful progress, the UN Secretary-General concluded that the Good Offices initiative had run its course.

In accordance with Article IV (2) of the Geneva Agreement, he exercised his authority and selected judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice as the next method of resolution.
Guyana, in accordance with the Secretary-General’s decision, filed an application with the ICJ on March 29, 2018, seeking a ruling on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the boundary it established. Venezuela, rather than cooperate, challenged the court’s jurisdiction, once again arguing that the Geneva Agreement did not allow for judicial proceedings.

After receiving extensive written submissions from both parties and holding oral hearings in June 2020, the court issued its judgment on jurisdiction on December 18, 2020.
“The court found that Guyana and Venezuela mutually conferred upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations the authority to choose the means of settlement of the controversy, and on 30th January 2018, the Secretary-General exercised this authority by choosing judicial settlement before the Court,” the ministry noted.

The court ruled that it has jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Co-operative Republic of Guyana on 29 March 2018, in so far as it concerns the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary controversy between the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that the Venezuelan Government’s current position is an attempt to ignore or undermine the binding ruling of the ICJ, a ruling which Venezuela is obligated to respect under the UN Charter. In light of this, it said that the court’s jurisdiction has already been confirmed, and the matter is now proceeding to the merits phase.

Since the court affirmed its jurisdiction, Guyana has filed two detailed written pleadings on the substance of the case. Venezuela has filed one pleading thus far, with its second due in August 2025. Oral hearings are expected to commence in the first half of 2026, after which the court will deliberate and issue a final and binding judgment.

Importantly, Guyana has reiterated its full commitment to international law and a peaceful resolution to the controversy. The government has pledged to abide by the Court’s final decision, whatever the outcome.