The territorial dispute over Essequibo, a region in South America claimed by both the bordering nation of Venezuela and its legal holder Guyana, has persisted for more than a century, raising significant legal questions regarding sovereignty.[1] This article examines the legality of Venezuela’s annexation claims over Essequibo and ultimately concludes that such an annexation is illegal under international law, specifically the United Nations (“UN”) Charter Article 2(4).[2]
The origins of the Essequibo dispute trace back to colonial times, primarily involving British and Dutch colonial powers.[3] The Peace of Münster in 1648 first established boundaries in the region, recognizing Dutch control over specific territories.[4] In 1814, the Treaty of London, also known as the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, transferred these territories, including Essequibo, from Dutch to British control.[5] In 1966, shortly before Guyana’s independence from the United Kingdom (“U.K.”), the U.K., Venezuela, and British Guiana (now Guyana) signed the Geneva Agreement to resolve the dispute through peaceful means.[6] Despite this agreement, the conflict has persisted, with Venezuela continuing to assert its claim over the region.[7] This historical context is crucial for understanding the basis of the conflicting claims of ownership of Essequibo between Guyana and Venezuela.[8]
There are several principles and legal norms for resolving territorial disputes, most relevant being uti possidetis juris, which holds that newly formed sovereign states from colonies should inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries.[9] Following this principle, the sovereign state of Guyana inherited the boundaries established during its colonial period as British Guiana, including Essequibo, as Essequibo was within its boundaries.[10]
Furthermore, the UN Charter prohibits the acquisition of territory by force in Article 2(4).[11] As both Guyana and Venezuela are signatories to the UN Charter, they are both beholden to this article.[12] This principle has been reaffirmed in various international treaties and judicial decisions, most notable is Nicaragua v. United States in 1986, where the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) found that the United States’ (“U.S.”) actions in Nicaragua violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.[13] emphasizing the importance of maintaining established borders unless the involved states mutually agree to trade or cede territory.[14]
Venezuela’s claim to Essequibo is primarily based on its rejection of the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela in favor of the former.[15] Venezuela contends that the arbitration process was biased and failed to adequately represent its interests.[16] However,arbitral awards are generally upheld as binding and final, provided the process adheres to principles of fairness and impartiality.[17] The 1899 Arbitral Award has been recognized by the United Nations as a legitimate resolution of the boundary dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over Essequibo.[18]
The ICJ has addressed similar territorial disputes, reinforcing established boundaries and the prohibition on the use of force to annex territory.[19] In the dispute over the land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, decided in 2002, the ICJ affirmed the principle that territorial changes must be based on mutual consent of each party to trade or cede territory, not unilateral actions of force to take the territory.[20] This ruling reinforces the argument that Venezuela’s attempts to annex Esequibo are unlawful.
Additionally, in the territorial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia, decided in 2007, the ICJ reaffirmed the significance of established boundaries by upholding colonial-era treaties and emphasizing that such agreements form the basis of territorial sovereignty, ensuring stability and peaceful dispute resolution.[21] The legal precedents established by Cameroon v. Nigeria and Nicaragua v. Colombia further weaken Venezuela’s legal position to forcefully annex Essequbio, as well as strengthens Guyana’s peaceful sovereignty claims over the region.
The ICJ’s rulings in Cameroon v. Nigeria and Nicaragua v. Colombia highlight the crucial role of the international court system in preserving global stability from armed conflicts over territory.[22] This approach is essential for preventing territorial disputes and promoting their peaceful resolution among states.
Venezuela’s annexation of Essequibo is unlawful under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which they are beholden to as a signatory.[23] Historical treaties and arbitral awards, including the Treaty of London (1814) and the 1899 Arbitral Award, have long established the region of Essequibo as part of British Guiana, now Guyana.[24] The principles of uti possidetis juris, where colonial boundaries are internationally recognized once a sovereign nation gains its independence from its colonizer, establishes the Essequibo region within Guyana’s borders. Respect for territorial integrity enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, all reinforce Guyana’s sovereignty over Essequibo.[25]
Venezuela’s unilateral actions to hold a referendum for the annexation of Essequibo and threaten unilateral force violate the UN Charter under Article 2(4) and undermine the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes.[26] Judicial precedents set by the ICJ, such as Cameroon v. Nigeria and Nicaragua v. Colombia, further affirm the unlawfulness of Venezuela’s annexation attempts, as their precedent rejects unilateral forceful actions to annex disputed territory.[27] In light of these considerations, the international community must firmly uphold Guyana’s territorial integrity and urge Venezuela to seek peaceful, lawful avenues for resolving the territorial dispute over Essequibo, avoid an armed conflict over the territory, and urge Venezuela to accept lawful resolutions and backdown from their claim.
[1] Melinda Janki, The Essequibo: From Guyana’s Sovereign Territory to a Territory in Dispute, Stabroek News, Nov. 8, 2024, https://www.stabroeknews.com/2024/11/08/features/the-essequibo-from-guyanas-sovereign-territory-to-a-territory-in-dispute/.
[2] U.N. Charter art. 2, ¶ 4.
[3] Treaty of Munster, 1648, Neth.-Spain, https://www.dipublico.org/3654/treaty-of-munster-1648-en-espanol/.
[4] Id.
[5] Treaty of London art. 1, Aug. 13, 1814, Gr. Brit.-Neth., https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1815-06-09/debates/0e7491ad-421f-4e13-9843-e5a4e4591f6c/ConventionBetweenGreatBritainAndTheNetherlands. [Hereinafter Treaty of London].
[6] Agreement to Resolve the Controversy Over the Frontier Between Venezuela and British Guiana, U.K.-Venez.-Br. Guiana, Feb. 17, 1966, 561 U.N.T.S. 322 [Hereinafter Geneva Agreement].
[7] Janki, supra note 1
[8] Id.
[9] Malcolm N. Shaw, The Heritage of States: The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris Today, 67 British Y.B. Int’l L. 75 (1996).
[10] Shameza David, An Analysis of the Claims of Guyana and Venezuela to the Essequibo Region, ResearchGate (May 15, 2019), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333088962_An_analysis_of_the_claims_of_Guyana_and_Venezuela_to_the_Essequibo_region.
[11] U.N. Charter, supra note 2
[12] United Nations, Member States, https://www.un.org/about-us/member-states(last visited Nov. 16, 2024).
[13] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27, 1986).
[14] Tensions are soaring between Guyana and Venezuela over a territorial dispute, NBC News (Dec. 9, 2023), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/know-tensions-soar-venezuela-guyana-territorial-dispute-rcna128909.
[15] Nazima Raghubir, Fears Simmer in Essequibo Region as Venezuela Eyes the Disputed Territory, Al Jazeera (Jan. 11, 2024), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/5/15/fears-simmer-in-essequibo-region-as-venezuela-eyes-the-disputed-territory.
[16] U.S. Announces Military Drills with Guyana Amid Dispute Over Oil-Rich Region with Venezuela, CBS News (Dec. 7, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/guyana-venezuela-conflict-essequibo-oil-us-military-flight-drills/.
[17] Jose Manuel Alvarez Zarate & Katia Fach Gomez, The Duties, Rights and Powers of International Arbitrators, 17 Law & Prac. Int’l Cts. & Tribunals 13 (2018).
[18] Reports of International Arbitration Awards, Award regarding the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela (Oct. 3, 1899), https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/331-340.pdf [Hereinafter 1899 Arbitration Agreement].
[19] Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Judgement, 2002 I.C.J. 94, 225, 228 (Oct. 10).
[20] Id.
[21] Case Concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), Judgement, 2007 I.C.J. 124 (Dec. 13).
[22] I.C.J., supra note 19; I.C.J., supra note 21.
[23] U.N. Charter, supra note 2; U.N., supra note 12.
[24] Treaty of London, supra note 5; 1899 Arbitration Agreement, supra note 18.
[25] Shaw, supra note 4.
[26] U.N. Charter, supra note 2.
[27] I.C.J., supra, note 19; I.C.J., supra note 21.
