59th Anniversary of the 1966 Geneva Agreement

Today the Government and people of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana commemorate the 59th Anniversary of the Geneva Agreement of 1966, which provides the framework for the resolution of the controversy that arose out of Venezuela’s unilateral attempt to nullify the legality of the Arbitral Award of 1899, which definitively established the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.

Pursuant to that historic agreement, and in strict conformity with its terms, the resolution of the controversy will come from the International Court of Justice in the form of a final and binding Judgment under international law. The Court has twice ruled that it has jurisdiction, under the Geneva Agreement, to resolve the controversy over the validity of the 1899 Award and the related question of the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela. Both States have participated in the proceedings before the Court. It is anticipated that oral hearings will be held early in 2026, and that the Court’s Judgment will come thereafter. Guyana has pledged to abide by it, as both sides are legally bound to do under the United Nations Charter.

In reflecting on the progress of the search for a resolution of the controversy in accordance with the Geneva Agreement, the Government of Guyana recalls that Article 1 of the Geneva Agreement provides that:

Article I – A Mixed Commission shall be established with the task of seeking satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom which has arisen as the result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela is null and void.

Essentially, Article 1 of the Geneva Agreement performs two important functions. First, it creates the Mixed Commission with a specific mandate to seek satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the controversy and secondly, it defines what the issue is between the two countries. It states clearly that a controversy arose because Venezuela contends that the 1899 Arbitral Award was null and void. What the agreement does not state is that the British or Guyana for that matter, agrees with Venezuela’s contention, or that there is any recognition of any ‘rights’ of Venezuela to any territory. In fact, both Great Britain and Guyana have always rejected Venezuela’s contention.

Article IV of the Geneva Agreement is more instructive of the intention of the parties with respect to a resolution of the controversy. It gives the Mixed Commission, with its specific mandate of a satisfactory solution for a practical settlement, a period of four years, within which to achieve that objective. If the Mixed Commission did not achieve its objective in the prescribed time, then the outstanding issues or the settlement of the controversy will be referred to the Governments of Guyana and Venezuela.

Article IV (1)- If, within a period of four years from the date of this Agreement, the Mixed Commission should not have arrived at a full agreement for the solution of the controversy it shall, in its final report, refer to the Government of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela any outstanding questions.

In its Final Report of 17 June 1970, the Mixed Commission reported as follows in paragraph 5:

The terms of the Mixed Commission having come to an end, the Commission now reports that in the course of its deliberations it has not arrived at any agreement for the solution of the controversy, and accordingly in compliance and in conformity with the requirement of the said Article IV, refers to the Government of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela in its entirety the solution of the said controversy.

Article IV (2) then provided that those two Governments shall now choose one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. In accordance with the Agreement, the search for a satisfactory solution for a practical settlement of the issue then came to an end. This was acknowledged by both Governments when they undertook to give the United Nations Secretary General the mandate to find a peaceful solution to the controversy in accordance with Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. Article IV provides that:

(2) If, within three months of receiving the final report, 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.

After twenty-seven (27) years of bilateral discussions between the two countries under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General with Venezuela being unable to prove her claim of nullity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, the Secretary General, on the basis of Article IV(2) of the Geneva Agreement,

chose the International Court of Justice as the means that is to be used for the resolution of the controversy. In accordance with the decision of the Secretary General, Guyana filed an application with the Court in March 2018, asking the Court to adjudge and declare, inter alia, that the 1899 Arbitral Award remains valid and binding on both Guyana and Venezuela.

As indicated above, the Court has found that based on the mandate exercised by the Secretary General in compliance with the 1966 Geneva Agreement, it has and intends to exercise its jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 1899 Award and the course of the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.

Despite this internationally recognized lawful process, Venezuela continues to misinterpret, undermine and violate the 1966 Geneva Agreement and the rule of international law, particularly through its provocative, illegal and aggressive actions aimed at annexing and exercising control over Guyana’s sovereign territory. The recent public statements by President Maduro and the National Electoral Council of Venezuela announcing Venezuela’s plan to hold elections this year in “Guayana Esequiba,” in which “the people of “Guayana Esequiba” will elect a “Governor of Guyana Esequiba State” represent the most blatant and threatening act of aggression by Venezuela thus far, and would be tantamount to the physical takeover of an integral part of Guyana – in complete violation of the very Geneva Agreement that Venezuela claims to revere.

Such an act would also violate the express Order of the International Court of Justice, issued on December 1, 2023, that:

Pending a final decision in the case, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela shall refrain from taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute, whereby the Co-operative Republic of Guyana administers and exercises control over that area.

Guyana reaffirms its unwavering commitment to international law, the sanctity of treaties, and its full concurrence and compliance with the judicial process currently before the ICJ – in accordance with the

1966 Geneva Agreement.

As we mark this anniversary, Guyana calls on her sister republic to eschew aggression and colonialist tendencies and pursue a path of peace, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other States, and the rule of international law.