The International Court of Justice on Friday heard that Venezuela was fully aware of every alleged defect it now raises against the 1899 Arbitral Award shortly after the ruling was delivered, but waited more than six decades before challenging it.
Appearing for Guyana during public hearings in The Hague, Professor Nilüfer Oral argued that Venezuela’s own conduct between 1899 and 1962 demonstrated repeated acceptance, implementation and recognition of the boundary established by the award.
“Venezuela was fully aware in 1899, or at least by 1900, of each and every ground it now asserts for invalidating the award,” Oral told the court.
She said Venezuela’s claim that it only became aware of alleged defects after the publication of the 1949 Mallet-Prevost memorandum was “a complete fiction”.
According to Oral, every issue now cited by Venezuela, including claims regarding lack of reasons, compromise among arbitrators and procedural impropriety, was known to Venezuelan officials immediately after the award was issued.
She pointed to a May 1900 report prepared by Venezuelan jurist and former foreign minister Dr Rafael Seijas, which examined possible grounds for challenging the award and concluded there were none sufficient to reopen the case.
On the issue of the award lacking written reasons, Oral quoted Seijas as stating that the 1897 Treaty of Washington did not require the tribunal to provide reasons for its decision and therefore “does not permit any complaint on that score”.
She argued that this proved Venezuela was aware of the absence of written reasons from the very beginning, but accepted the ruling.
Oral further told the court that Venezuela actively implemented the boundary established by the award for decades, including through joint demarcation exercises with the United Kingdom and the publication of official maps consistently reflecting the 1899 boundary.
“We showed some 16 maps dating from 1905 until 1962 consistently reflecting the 1899 award and the 1905 agreement to the letter,” she said.
The legal representative stressed that Venezuela’s conduct went beyond silence and amounted to explicit acceptance of the boundary settlement.
Citing the court’s ruling in the Temple of Preah Vihear case, Oral argued that a state cannot continue benefiting from a settlement for decades and later deny its validity.
“It is not now open to Venezuela, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of the settlement, to deny that she was ever a consenting party,” she argued, paraphrasing the court’s earlier jurisprudence.
The hearings form part of Guyana’s case seeking a final declaration that the 1899 Arbitral Award, which fixed the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela, is valid and legally binding.