Why is the Geneva Agreement the Only Way to Resolve the Essequibo Dispute?

By Misión Verdad – Aug 13, 2025

The territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana over the Esequibo region is more than a conventional border conflict. It is, essentially, a dispute inherited from colonialism, tinged with geopolitical and corporate interests that have transcended the borders between Venezuela and its neighbor to become a battle for strategic resources in the Caribbean region.

Almost six decades after its signing, the 1966 Geneva Agreement remains the prevailing legal and diplomatic framework for resolving this controversy. However, the path chosen by Guyana—the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—has created a deep fracture in the process since Venezuela does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ over the matter.

In recent months, the Venezuelan government has intensified its diplomatic stance. On Monday, August 11, Venezuela Vice President Delcy Rodríguez emphasized that Venezuela will not recognize any decision by the ICJ regarding the Essequibo, and that the court lacks legitimacy to resolve a matter that, by mandate of international law, must be settled through direct negotiation.

She reiterated that “the only possible solution within the framework of international law is to be found in the Geneva Agreement” because “it is about achieving a practical and satisfactory agreement for both parties,” which is “incompatible with a judicial resolution.”

“Guyana has the unavoidable obligation to fulfill its international duties and sit down to negotiate in good faith,” stated in a communiqué issued by the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry. A new document was also submitted to the ICJ with additional evidence supporting Venezuela’s historical position.

The document, presented as an extension of the “historical truth,” does not seek to participate in a trial that Venezuela considers null and void but rather to record its rejection of a process that, in its opinion, violates the spirit and letter of the Geneva Agreement.

President Nicolás Maduro has insisted on having face-to-face talks with Guyanese President Irfaan Ali, arguing that only direct conversation, free from external interference, can lead to a fair and lasting solution.

Geneva Agreement: bridge towards a solution without foreign interference
On February 17, 1966, in the Swiss city of Geneva, Venezuela, the United Kingdom, and the then British Guiana signed agreement 8192, under the auspices of the United Nations, aimed at “resolving the controversy over the border between Venezuela and British Guiana.”

It is the only instrument recognized by Venezuela to resolve the dispute, given that:

It declares the Paris Arbitration Award of 1899 null and establishes that the parties must find a “practical and satisfactory” solution.
It obliges Guyana and Venezuela to negotiate before resorting to other mechanisms.
It was ratified by the UN, which gives it full validity in international law.

Venezuela bases its position on the fact that the Geneva Agreement is not a mere diplomatic protocol but a binding commitment that excludes all judicial solution mechanisms. “The only possible solution within the framework of international law is to be found in the Geneva Agreement, which consists of reaching a practical and satisfactory agreement for both parties,” according to Vice President Rodríguez. This principle is fundamental: the treaty does not provide for arbitration or intervention by international courts, instead it calls for direct negotiation between the parties.

Timeline of the origin of the Essequibo dispute.

In 2018, Guyana, backed by foreign interests, brought the case before the ICJ, arguing that the aforementioned Arbitral Award—a ruling that Venezuela has always considered null due to procedural fraud—should be validated. However, Venezuela maintains that:

The 1899 Award was the result of procedural fraud, as shown by historical documents, including the memorandum of the US lawyer Severo Mallet-Prevost, who had represented Venezuela at that time and who later revealed that the decision had been manipulated by the British and US colonial powers.
The Geneva Agreement nullifies any previous decision as it establishes a new legal framework to resolve the dispute.
The ICJ has no jurisdiction because Guyana never fulfilled the requirement of exhausting bilateral negotiations before resorting to international instances.

The Geneva Agreement, although it has not yet resulted in a definitive solution, demonstrates that there is a viable diplomatic path as long as Guyana decides to adhere to the commitments made in 1966. Instead of adhering to this treaty, it has chosen to internationalize the conflict with the support of foreign powers, especially the United States.

Moreover, Venezuela’s 2023 consultative referendum, in which 95% of the voters rejected the jurisdiction of the ICJ, reinforces the position that “Venezuela cannot be forced to submit its vital interests to third parties.”

Venezuela Deploys Forces as US Imperial Navy Enters Caribbean (+Washington’s Lies)

ExxonMobil and the internationalization of the conflict
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has pointed out that Guyana has resorted to extra-regional powers to reintroduce colonial coercion against Venezuela with the aim of “appropriating the natural resources of the disputed territory.” Precisely, the internationalization of the conflict is a strategy reflected in the pressure attempts exerted by the CARICOM, the OAS, and the United States Southern Command, which support the Guyanese position and block any attempt at bilateral dialogue.

While the territorial dispute has historical roots, its current escalation is closely linked to the exploration and extraction of energy resources in the waters of the Atlantic Façade and strategic minerals on land. Since 2015, the US oil giant ExxonMobil has obtained licenses from Guyana to extract oil from the Stabroek block, where more than 11 billion barrels of oil have been discovered. The contractual conditions overwhelmingly favor the multinational corporation while leaving Guyana with barely a fraction of the profits, which has led analysts to describe the country as a “subsidiary of ExxonMobil.”

The timeline of the current escalation of the conflict:

In 2015, ExxonMobil discovered one of the largest oil fields in the world in undelimited waters of the Atlantic Façade. Since then, it has pressured Guyana to control the area, disregarding Venezuela’s claims.
The US oil company has funded legal studies and media campaigns to present Venezuela as an “aggressor state,” which seeks to justify the intervention of the ICJ.
In 2023, ExxonMobil got Guyana to grant it concessions in the Stabroek block, a maritime zone claimed by Venezuela. This generated tensions that led Caracas to hold a consultative referendum in December 2023 to reaffirm its sovereignty.

These concessions, granted in maritime areas that Venezuela considers part of its continental shelf, have been the main obstacle to dialog. While Guyana benefits from a strategic alliance with the United States and major oil companies, Venezuela decries that a “corporate cannibalization” is taking place, using the international judicial system to legitimize an illegitimate appropriation of resources.

in March, a think tank in Guyana called for greater US intervention, which shows how foreign interests are displacing national sovereignty in favor of corporations. Venezuela, for its part, maintains that only a bilateral agreement, based on equity and justice, can guaranty regional peace.

Venezuelan VP Delcy Rodríguez pointed out that the “abusive, illicit, and illegitimate extraction” of these resources by transnational corporations “flagrantly violates international law” because Guyana lacks the legitimacy to unilaterally dispose of a disputed area.

Venezuela does not reject international law; on the contrary, it defends one of its most solid instruments: the Geneva Agreement. Its refusal to recognize the ICJ is in defense of the treaty that both Venezuela and Guyana signed. While Guyana seeks a judicial solution that legitimizes a colonial imposition, Venezuela insists on a bilateral dialog, free from interference that, although complex, is the only path to lasting peace.

(Misión Verdad)

Translation: Orinoco Tribune

OT/SC/DZ