–as hearings in border case conclude
–AG Nandlall says clear ruling will finally settle controversy, warns Venezuela cannot defy international law

GUYANA has emerged from the final oral hearings in its historic border controversy case against Venezuela at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) “more confident than ever” that the world court will uphold the 1899 Arbitral Award and definitively affirm the country’s lawful boundary.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, made the declaration on Monday following the conclusion of proceedings in The Hague, Netherlands.
As oral hearings concluded at the ICJ at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, Nandlall described the completion of proceedings as a triumph for international law and the rules-based global order, while warning that any refusal by Venezuela to comply with the court’s eventual ruling would place Caracas in breach of fundamental international obligations.
“The very fact that this case reached the ICJ, and that the written and oral phases of the proceedings were carried out to their completions, represents a triumph for the rule of law and the rules-based international order,” Nandlall said in a statement issued shortly after hearings ended.
“Disputes between States must be resolved peacefully, finally and in conformity with international law. They must not be allowed to fester indefinitely. They must never be resolved by threat or use of military force.”
The oral hearings, held between May 4 and May 11, saw Guyana and Venezuela present arguments in two rounds of pleadings before the ICJ — the United Nations’ highest judicial body.
The court will now deliberate before issuing its final judgment on the merits of the case, a ruling Nandlall stressed will be legally binding on both countries.
At the centre of the controversy is Guyana’s request for the court to affirm the legal validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the international boundary between then British Guiana and Venezuela.
Guyana argued the award conclusively settled the border more than a century ago, while Venezuela maintains its claim of invalidity.
Importantly, the ICJ has already ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter on its merits. In a December 2020 judgment, the court rejected Venezuela’s challenge to its authority and ruled it has the power to determine the validity of the 1899 award and the land boundary between the two neighbouring states.
According to Nandlall, Guyana entered the hearings confident in its legal position but emerged even more optimistic after presenting its case.
He said: “Guyana is confident – in fact, after these oral hearings, Guyana is more confident than ever — that the court will uphold the legal validity of the unanimous Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899.”
Nandlal added that the court would confirm it as “the final, definitive and permanent lawful boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.”
The Attorney General praised Guyana’s presentations before the court, stating the country advanced “compelling and convincing” arguments that exposed “the lack of merit in Venezuela’s arguments both on the facts and on the law.”
He commended Guyana’s delegation, including Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Minister Hugh Todd and Guyana’s Agent in the proceedings, Carl Greenidge, while extending gratitude to the country’s international legal team led by renowned attorneys Paul Reichler, Philippe Sands and Alain Pellet.
Nandlall also revisited the history of the controversy, arguing that Venezuela accepted, respected and complied with the 1899 boundary for 63 years before suddenly challenging it in 1962 as Guyana neared independence.
He stated: “The court’s final judgment will bring to an end, the controversy that arose in 1962, when Venezuela, for the first time, challenged the lawfulness of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the international boundary it established, after accepting, respecting and complying with the Award and the boundary, without protest for 63 years.”
Nandlall further argued that Venezuela revived the claim at a strategically advantageous moment, when British troops were preparing to leave Guyana and Caracas held “a significant military advantage” to pursue what he described as an “antiquated claim” to nearly three-quarters of Guyana’s territory.
Nandlall also provided a detailed explanation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which was negotiated by Britain before Guyana’s independence to ensure Venezuela’s challenge to the boundary would be resolved peacefully.
The agreement first provided for four years of bilateral negotiations, but when those talks failed, authority shifted to the UN Secretary-General to determine the appropriate means of settlement.
After more than five decades without resolution, UN Secretary-General António Guterres decided in January 2018 that the controversy should be settled by the ICJ — a decision Nandlall stressed was binding on both states. Guyana subsequently initiated proceedings before the Court in March of that year.
The Attorney General drew a sharp contrast between Guyana’s pledge to respect the court’s decision and statements from Venezuelan officials suggesting Caracas may refuse to comply.
“Guyana has pledged repeatedly, including at these oral hearings, that it will abide by the court’s judgment, whatever it may be,” he said.
By contrast, he noted: “We have heard the statements of Venezuela’s representatives at these hearings, including today, that they do not accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction and will not abide by its rulings.”
According to Nandlall, any refusal to comply with the court would constitute “a breach of its most solemn obligations under the United Nations Charter, the Charter of the Organization of American States, and general international law.”
He added that the international community would not permit fundamental principles of the rules-based order to be undermined.
Even so, he stressed that Guyana remains committed to peace and cooperation.
“We will continue to address Venezuela in a spirit of peace, cooperation and friendship, and as sovereign equals,” Nandlall said, while insisting that Venezuela refrain from “trespassing on, or threatening, Guyana’s sovereignty.”
He expressed hope that Venezuela’s rejection of the court reflects the emotions of litigation and that, ultimately, both nations will accept the judgment as the basis for “a just and lasting peace, and an enduring friendship.”