FOR over 60 years, Guyana has faced the looming threat from a neighbour’s ambition. Venezuela’s claim to the Essequibo, a vast area covering nearly three-quarters of Guyana’s territory, is not just a legal issue or a minor detail in diplomatic history.
As Attorney General Anil Nandlall told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week in The Hague, it poses an existential risk: “The loss of the territory claimed by Venezuela would wipe out Guyana. Indeed, the country as we know it would cease to exist.” Those words were not exaggeration; they reflected a harsh reality.
The merits hearings now taking place at the Peace Palace are the most significant legal event in this nation’s history since it gained independence. Guyana brought this case to the world’s highest court in 2018, seeking a straightforward yet urgent confirmation — that the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the international boundary between Guyana and Venezuela, still holds legal weight and must be honoured.
The ICJ has already twice confirmed its authority to address the controversy. What Guyana is requesting is not out of the ordinary. The country is asking the court to affirm a basic principle of international order: that legal decisions, once made and executed, cannot be easily disregarded by a revisionist neighbour a century later.
Venezuela’s actions throughout these proceedings have been revealing. Caracas has spent years, in AG Nandlall’s words, “straining every sinew” to avoid a decision on the merits. It has contested the court’s authority, boycotted sessions at various points, and even held a domestic referendum to create a false sense of popular support for its claim.
Most recently, Venezuela’s lawyers told the ICJ that even a ruling in favour of Guyana would not change Caracas’ stance on Essequibo. If this is Venezuela’s position, it only strengthens Nandlall’s main argument: any hint of uncertainty or ambiguity in the court’s ruling will be used as justification for ongoing aggression. The ruling must be clear, direct, and unmistakable.
Guyana’s case relies on more than just legal formalities. Professor Nilüfer Oral presented evidence that Venezuela accepted and followed the 1899 boundary for over 60 years, taking part in joint marking efforts and issuing official maps that consistently reflected this award before abruptly rejecting it in 1962.
Guyana also showed that Spain and Venezuela never historically occupied Essequibo, disproving the colonial- grievance narrative Venezuela has tried to promote. These points are significant. They form the legal basis that reveal Venezuela’s claims as driven by strategy rather than historical facts.
It is not a coincidence that the urgency of Venezuela’s claim has increased alongside the discovery of oil in the Essequibo offshore zone, which is now believed to contain over 11 billion barrels of recoverable reserves. Guyana’s emergence as a major oil producer has transformed this territorial controversy from a historical complaint into a geopolitical issue. The people of Guyana need to understand what is at stake. This conflict is about more than land; it concerns the country’s economic future, its independence, and its right to shape its own path.
The ICJ’s ruling, expected in the coming months, will not only determine Guyana’s fate. It will also signal to the world whether international law can defend smaller countries from the territorial ambitions of larger ones.
For Guyana, the verdict must be clear cut. As Nandlall rightly reminded the judges, for this nation, the ICJ stands as the last hope for peace and stability. That hope must not be limited, ambiguous, or inadequately addressed. Guyana’s future depends on this certainty.