Guyana-Venezuela boundary awarded unanimously

Last Updated on Friday, 8 May 2026, 11:50 by Denis Chabrol

Guyana on Friday argued before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal award of the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela was done unanimously, after tribunal president Friedrich Martens’ efforts to find consensus.

“An 1899 award admittedly failed to state reasons, but with a slight exception, the arbitrators unanimously signed a text indicating that they had faithfully adhered to the text…of which is reproduced verbatim in the award,” International Law Professor, Alain Pelet, said in presenting Guyana’s second round of oral arguments before The Hague-based highest United Nations court.

On Venezuela’s position that the the 1899 tribunal did not provide any reasons for arriving at its decision, Dr Pele said at that time providing such a statement was not yet mandatory no matter how desirable that might have been. He said consensus might have reached consensus otherwise through private meetings amongst the arbitrators.

Dr Pelet quoted in part the text as saying that the panel “investigated and ascertained the extent of the territories belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed by the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain, respectively, at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the colony of British Guiana.”

Professor Philippe  Sands said there was no evidence that President Martens threatened force or engaged in any undue exercise of authority. “There is none, not a shred of evidence, even assuming the Mallet Prevost memorandum to be accurate, and we have no idea whether it is. It does no more than describe a tribunal President’s efforts to gain consensus by warning that a majority award is likely to be less attractive in one way or another,” he said.

Venezuela this week presented to the ICJ excerpts of documentary evidence it said proved that there was collusion by Mr Martens and members of the tribunal that ultimately arrived at a settlement to the advantage of the United Kingdom, then  the colonial power of British Guiana.

Dr Sands said Venezuela accepted the 1899 Award for more than 60 years, fully aware that the boundary was settled as a result of consensus which until today remains a “constant feature of arbitral deliberation”. He described Mr Martins strove for consensus as an “act of decency and wisdom”. He suggested that if the arbitrators had failed to agree would have confirmed Great Britain in the possession of even more territory, and and that was what Mr. Martins wished to avoid.

Dr Sands said Venezuela, instead, relied on the Mallet Prevost memorandum was used as a means of reviving anti-colonial sentiment.

Professor Sands warned that if the ICJ agrees with Venezuela and find invalid the 1899 Arbitral Award, and presumably also the 1905 treaty, “you would rekindle the embers of dead empires.” “You would plunge Guyana into a new form of domination and oppression in relations with its much larger neighbour.” Dr Sands also said the ICJ would setting a dangerous precedent that would threaten to “open the gates” of challenge any every colonial era arbitration award or boundary settlement. He also said that would send a worldwide signal that 60 years is no bar to setting aside an arbitral award or boundary treaty. “You would rekindle an age of instability and uncertainty, one that would run directly contrary to the wisdom of Africa, one that would threaten to open the gates of challenge to any and every colonial era arbitration award or boundary settlement,” he added.

Professor Nilüfer Oral, also arguing for Guyana at the ICJ’s oral hearings on the merits of the case, on Friday said the evidence shows that Britain remained loyal to the 1899 boundary and never attempted to or threaten to cross or expand it. “The award accomplished Venezuela’s objective in seeking arbitration. It halted permanently the westward advance of British settlement.”

Guyana’s Foreign Affairs Ministry on Thursday said the ICJ would deliver its decision on the case filed by Georgetown eight years ago by the end of 2026. Other well-placed sources said that decision could be forthcoming by early 2027.