USI: 1015928

Course: Public International Law II

Lecturer: Professor Duke Pollard.
Date: April 24th 2020.
Question: Evaluate respectively the territorial claims of Venezuela and Guyana to the Essequibo
Region.

Introduction
The Guyana-Venezuela Border dispute is a long-standing diplomatic controversy referring to
parts of the territory of what up to 1966 was called British Guiana, now known as Guyana. The
dispute started in the 19th century between Venezuela and the United Kingdom (UK) which
controlled British Guiana at the time, and continued between Venezuela and Guyana, after
independence was achieved in 1966. After forty-five years of accepting the award of the 1899
Arbitration as binding, Venezuela resuscitated its claim when a controversial memorandum was
published. Further, Guyana and Venezuela possess economic and political interests in the
disputed Essequibo region. Both parties are operating from different positions, with Venezuela
favoring for bilateral negotiations to exclude the western powers from the process, whilst
Guyana’s position is one for a judicial solution. These positions are not novel but were shaped by
the history of the dispute. An analysis of the Guyana-Venezuela border dispute will highlight
those reasons for their extreme positions and reinforce the degree of complexity which is often
associated with dispute resolution. But is most be stated that although the border dispute was
‘settled’ by a tribunal in 1899, it still persists and has continued to hindered mutual cooperation
between the two disputing nations and economic development of the Essequibo region.

In this paper, the writer will evaluate respectively, the territorial claims of Venezuela and
Guyana to the Essequibo Region. From Guyana’s position the focus will mainly be on the 1899
arbitral award and the doctrines of recognition and acquiescence. For Venezuela, the main
contention which will be evaluated is the reasons for the invalidity of the 1899 arbitral award.

Guyana
Great Britain (for British Guiana) signed a Treaty of Arbitration with the Republic of Venezuela
signed in 1897. Article 1 of the treaty had provided for the immediate appointment of an arbitral
tribunal to determine the boundary line between Guyana (British Guiana, at the time) and
Venezuela. The British argued that they inherited the Dutch occupied areas, which were the
Essequibo, Mazaruni, Cuyuni, Moruka, Pameroon, Waini, Barima and Amakura rivers1. Article
XIII of the Treaty of Washington, allows for the contracting parties to recognize the arbitral
award as the full, perfect and final settlement2, which meant the treaty would be legally binding
on both Great Britain and Venezuela. The treaty had also defined its core concepts of law, (i.e.
principle of occupation), the tribunal’s rules and composition. Article II of the treaty authorized
Great Britain and Venezuela to nominate two (2) jurists each, and the four jurists would choose
the President of the tribunal3.

By virtue of arbitration proceedings, Guyana was awarded the Essequibo region in 1899. Since
then, the international community has recognized Essequibo as a part of Guyana’s territorial
sovereignty, Guyana argues it is legal and binding on the two nations. Guyana has time and time
again remained firm to compromises on proposals such as, ceding some of its Essequibo territory
to Venezuela or re-demarcating the region’s borders.

The Guyanese government's position is that the 1899 Paris Award is entirely valid; the Guyanese
believe that they have the stronger case in international law, as well as prescriptive right, from
lawful possession derived through long and unchallenged occupation. Guyana has exercised
administrative control over the disputed Essequibo territory without challenge during the
twentieth century except for Venezuela's continuing claim to said territory4. Post-independence
Guyana, continued to claim and occupied the territory which British Guiana had controlled for
over 50 years without disruption. President Forbes Burnham in his address to the nation in
response to Venezuela’s intrusion on Guyanese territory - Ankoko Island stated that “at the
western boundary between Guyana and Venezuela, the Wenamu river flows into the Cuyuni and

1
Thomas Donovan, “Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: A Legal Analysis,” in Georgia
Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 32, p. 676

2
Ibid, p. 676

3
Odeen Ishmael, The Trail of Diplomacy, the Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute Vol. One, Colonization,
Boundary Dispute and Arbitration, 2013, p. 346.

4
Orlando Jesus Fernandez Y Gomez, The Guyana- Venezuela Border Dispute: An Analysis of
the reasons behind Venezuela’s continuing demands for abrogation of the 1899 Anglo-
Venezuelan Arbitral Treaty, University of Florida, 1992, pg 36.
there is an island at this junction called Ankoko Island…. according to the map in exist since
1904”. The Geneva Agreement and the Protocols of Port-of-Spain, were both formulated to
foster a peaceful resolution to the border dispute, but both failed to do so due continuous
breaches by Venezuela against the territorial integrity of Guyana.

Venezuela
Before the 1899 award was made, Venezuela claimed to the United States that the acts of Britain
sought to lay claim to territory that they had not previously acquired. In 1895 the United States
sent a letter to Britain demanding a definite reply as to whether Britain would the dispute submit
to arbitration. The United States justified its intervention based on the Monroe Doctrine and
expressed hope that the dispute would be brought to arbitration and hinted that a refusal would
jeopardize U.S – British relations. Britain countered with a statement to the effect that the
Monroe Doctrine was inapplicable in this disputed matter, that Britain has the historical right to
the disputed area and it was willing to submit certain areas to arbitration5. Post-1899 arbitral
award between 1915-1917, the Venezuelan government attempted in vain to relocate some
sectors of the frontier line and that during the next twenty years there were three separate
incidents involving the legality of the frontier line6.
Major contention regarding the validity of the 1899 arbitral award arose due to the release of a
memorandum written by Severo Mallet-Provost after his death which pointed the finger at
corruption between the tribunal and Great Britain. In international law, Article 35 of the Model
Rules on Arbitral Procedure drafted by the International Law Commission indicate three
instances in which an arbitral award may be declared a nullity and therefore invalid: (1) excess of
power, (2) corruption of a tribunal member, and (3) departure from fundamental rules of
procedure7. Firstly, in order For Venezuela to prove that the tribunal had over used its power
under compromis, which in this instance would be the 1897 Arbitration Treaty which would
have outlined key terms and legal considerations agreed to by the parties. Further, major
contentions aroused around the fact that fact that the arbitrators did not take into account, for

5
J. Braveboy-Wagner, The Venezuela- Guyana Border Dispute: Britain’s Colonial Legacy
in Latin America (1st edn, Westview Press 1984) p 104.
6
Kissler, Betty Jane. Venezuela-Guyana Boundary Dispute: 1899- 1966. Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms, 1972.
7
M. Shaw, International Law (7th edn, Cambridge University Press 2014) p 1053.
their verdict, the applicable rules of right and particularly the principle of uti possidetis juris; nor
did they make any effort to ascertain the boundaries of Dutch and Spanish territories as set out in
Article III of the arbitration treaty, and arbitrators did not establish how the fifty years terms of
prescription were to be computed nor did they apply it according to the rules of the arbitration
treaty8. Secondly, Venezuela’s strongest claim to invalidate the 1899 arbitral award is corruption,
a sinister plot by other states to take away their territory. Venezuela, however, contests the
validity of the award on the basis of Mallet-Prevost's posthumous declaration. Venezuela claims
the fact that the Award Tribunal did not substantiate the reasons for its decisions as grounds for
nullifying the 1899 Arbitral Award. The counter argument to Venezuela's position is that she had
in her possession the materials she required to contest the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal for
over sixty- two years and only sought to do so in August 19629. The grant to Britain of most of
the interior territory it claimed under the most recent Schomburgk line (1887), coupled with the
award of the strategic Point Barima to Venezuela, could suggest either that the arbitrators gave a
generous interpretation of to Rule (c) of Article IV or that there was a diplomatic compromise of
the kind alleged by Venezuela10. Although Venezuela has made a series of accusation claiming
corruption of the arbitration process, no factual evidence has been supplied which would support
Venezuela’s position and invalidate the arbitral award. Lastly, departure from fundamental rules
of procedure can also invalidate an arbitration award. For instance, 1909 Arbitral Decision
demarcating the line between Bolivia and Peru is one example of this principle in practice.

Conclusion
For over 100 years, the Essequibo region continues to be disputed territory between Guyana and
Venezuela. As outlined in the paper, Venezuela has no legal claim to the disputed territory, and
have time and time again rejected international arbitration to achieve a peaceful resolution.
International law in on the side of Guyana, and without a doubt, in the future the ICJ will
rightfully rule in Guyana’s favor which will finally bring an end to raging prolonged dispute.
Bibliography
8
J. Braveboy-Wagner, The Venezuela- Guyana Border Dispute: Britain’s Colonial Legacy in Latin America (1st edn,
Westview Press 1984) p 117.
9
Orlando Jesus Fernandez Y Gomez, The Guyana- Venezuela Border Dispute: An Analysis of
the reasons behind Venezuela’s continuing demands for abrogation of the 1899 Anglo-
Venezuelan Arbitral Treaty, University of Florida, 1992, pg 18.
10
J. Braveboy-Wagner, The Venezuela- Guyana Border Dispute: Britain’s Colonial Legacy in Latin America (1st edn,
Westview Press 1984) p 124.
 Thomas Donovan, “Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: A Legal Analysis,”
in Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 32.
 Odeen Ishmael, The Trail of Diplomacy, the Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute Vol.
One, Colonization, Boundary Dispute and Arbitration, 2013.
 Orlando Jesus Fernandez Y Gomez, The Guyana- Venezuela Border Dispute: An
Analysis of the reasons behind Venezuela’s continuing demands for abrogation of the
1899 Anglo-Venezuelan Arbitral Treaty, University of Florida, 1992.
 J. Braveboy-Wagner, The Venezuela- Guyana Border Dispute: Britain’s Colonial Legacy
in Latin America (1st edn, Westview Press 1984).
 Kissler, Betty Jane. Venezuela-Guyana Boundary Dispute: 1899- 1966. Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms, 1972.
 M. Shaw, International Law (7th edn, Cambridge University Press 2014).