The Guyana-Venezuela Dispute over Essequibo

The Essequibo region spans approximately 159,500 square kilometers, making up about 70 percent of Guyana’s territory. Beyond its size, the region holds immense strategic and economic value, what makes it the center of a dispute between Guyana and Venezuela. What began as a colonial-era disagreement has evolved into a complex geopolitical issue, involving a controversial arbitral award, discussions in the International Court of Justice, and provocative maneuvers by the Venezuelans. The dispute came to a head in 2023, when a Venezuelan referendum allegedly supported the incorporation of Essequibo into the country’s territory. The referendum and subsequent actions by Venezuela were met with widespread condemnation, and they raised fears of a conflict in South America. However, the possibility of an armed conflict was ultimately averted by means of diplomatic negotiations, even though Essequibo remains a contested region.

The importance of Essequibo

Essequibo is central to Guyana’s territorial integrity and economic future. The region is rich in natural resources, including gold, bauxite, diamonds, and other strategic minerals. It also boasts vast freshwater reserves, dense forests, and a diverse network of rivers that enhance its ecological and hydrological value. More recently, the region has become critical to the global energy landscape due to substantial offshore oil discoveries along its Atlantic coast. Since 2015, exploration led by multinational companies — most notably ExxonMobil — has uncovered extensive petroleum reserves in the maritime area adjacent to the disputed territory. These discoveries have turned Guyana into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, with proven reserves exceeding eleven billion barrels of oil. Much of this oil lies in the Stabroek Block, partially located within waters claimed by Venezuela.

For the Venezuelans, Essequibo represents a potential source of economic revitalization amid a prolonged crisis marked by sanctions and economic decline. The region’s natural wealth is seen in Caracas as essential to national development and energy security. Furthermore, Essequibo shares geological and ecological characteristics with Arco Minero del Orinoco, a prosperous mining area within Venezuela. This reinforces the Venezuelans’ belief that Essequibo is a portion of their own territory — if not politically, then according to natural borders.

Despite its large size, Essequibo is sparsely populated. It is home to around 125,000 people, approximately 15 percent of Guyana’s population. The majority of its inhabitants are indigenous communities who live in rural areas. These populations largely identify with Guyana and have shown little to no alignment with Venezuelan claims.

As natural resource competition intensifies and global demand for energy and minerals remains high, Essequibo’s geostrategic relevance is likely to increase.

History of the dispute

The dispute over Essequibo traces back to the colonial rivalries of the early modern period. During the 17th and 18th centuries, the territory was contested by Spain and the Netherlands, with both powers establishing settlements and trading posts in the region. By the early 19th century, the Dutch colonies of Demerara, Berbice, and Essequibo had come under British control, and in 1831 they were consolidated into what became British Guiana.

Venezuela, which had declared independence from Spain in 1810, considered the Essequibo region part of its inherited territory from the former Captaincy General of Venezuela. The lack of clearly defined borders between British and Venezuelan holdings led to growing tensions. In 1840, Britain commissioned a boundary survey by the German explorer Robert Schomburgk, who proposed to demarcate according to what came to be known as the Schomburgk Line. The Venezuelans rejected the British proposal for demarcation, because it placed key river access points — such as the Orinoco Delta — under British control.

Tensions escalated in the late 19th century following the discovery of gold in the disputed area. In 1887, Venezuela severed diplomatic ties with Britain, and in 1895 it appealed to the United States for support, invoking the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. government demanded that the matter be submitted to international arbitration. This was an assertive stance taken by President Grover Cleveland, which would inspire the formulation of the Olney Doctrine. According to it, the United States would have the authority to rule over any diplomatic disputes in the American hemisphere. Britain ultimately agreed and, in 1899, an arbitral tribunal based in Paris ruled in favor of the British, granting them sovereignty over most of the contested territory.

Although Venezuela accepted the ruling at the time, dissatisfaction with the outcome persisted. Decades later, in 1949, a posthumous memorandum by a member of the Venezuelan-U.S. legal team alleged that the arbitral decision had been the result of a political compromise rather than a fair legal judgment. The memorandum claimed that the judges agreed to unanimously award Britain with a partial (yet significant) victory, rather than award the whole territory to Britain by a majority vote with two judges dissenting. This claim led Venezuela to denunciate the arbitral award in the United Nations in 1962.

The growing internationalization of the issue culminated in the signing of the Geneva Agreement in 1966 by Venezuela, the United Kingdom, and British Guiana (shortly before the latter’s independence as Guyana). That international treaty acknowledged the existence of a territorial dispute and committed the parties to seek a peaceful, practical, and mutually satisfactory solution. Despite decades of negotiations, however, the matter remained unresolved, and Venezuela continued to assert that the 1899 arbitral award was invalid.

Since then, the dispute has resurfaced periodically, particularly in moments of internal political pressure in Venezuela or when economic interests in Essequibo gained new relevance. Both Venezuela and Guyana attempt to justify their territorial claims by making reference to the historical foundations of the dispute.

The escalation of tensions and the ICJ case

Despite the Geneva Agreement of 1966, negotiations between Venezuela and Guyana have yielded no definitive outcome. The creation of a mixed commission, and later the involvement of the United Nations through the appointment of good offices representatives, failed to produce consensus. In 2014, the death of the last UN-appointed facilitator and the declaration by the UN Secretary General that the bilateral talks had been unsuccessful marked the end of that mediation phase.

Tensions began to rise again in 2015, when the American company ExxonMobil announced major oil discoveries in Guyanese waters, within a contested maritime zone. The announcement came shortly after Guyana issued new exploration licenses to international companies, prompting a strong reaction from Caracas. The Venezuelan government issued a presidential decree extending its maritime boundaries to encompass the disputed waters, a move that Guyana denounced as an act of aggression and a violation of international law.

In March 2018, Guyana formally submitted a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), requesting that the Court affirm the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award as a “full, final, and perfect settlement” of the boundary between the two countries. Venezuela, however, refused to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction. Its government maintained that the ICJ could not unilaterally decide the issue without the consent of both parties and insisted that the only acceptable path forward was bilateral negotiation. In July 2018, Venezuela formally stated it would not participate in the proceedings and questioned the legal basis for the referral, arguing that the Geneva Agreement required mutual agreement before submitting the dispute to any judicial body.

Despite Venezuela’s objections, the Court proceeded. In December 2020, it issued a preliminary ruling declaring that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, at least with regard to determining the legal status of the 1899 award and the subsequent boundary line. The ICJ decision was based on its interpretation of the Geneva Agreement and the authority of the UN Secretary-General to choose the means of settlement. This ruling was a significant legal victory for Guyana and paved the way for formal and compulsory legal proceedings over Essequibo.

The escalation of the dispute coincided with deepening political and economic crises within Venezuela. Facing international isolation and domestic opposition, the government of Nicolás Maduro increasingly emphasized the Essequibo issue in its rhetoric, presenting it as a matter of national sovereignty and historical justice. State media and official discourse portrayed the territory as part of Venezuela’s rightful heritage, fueling nationalist sentiment over the region. Also, the Venezuelan government began to engage in military posturing, by detaining oil exploration vessels, with the aim to disrupt the Guyanese oil sector.

In subsequent submissions to the Court, Guyana defended the legitimacy of the 1899 arbitral award and the boundary demarcated thereafter. It emphasized the historical acceptance of the award for several decades, including the joint demarcation of the frontier and the Guyanese long-standing administrative control over Essequibo. Venezuela, while remaining detached the proceedings, reiterated its position in political and diplomatic forums, claiming that the award was the result of collusion and undue political pressure on the arbitral tribunal.

By 2022, the ICJ proceedings were moving ahead. Guyana presented its written memorial, and the Court granted Venezuela time to file a counter-memorial, should it want to join the discussions. As a potential definitive ruling on the case was expected for the near future, Caracas intensified its nationalist messaging and began to mobilize its domestic public opinion. This was in line with the Venezuelan view that the dispute was not only a legal matter but also a political one.

The 2023 crisis and the Argyle Declaration

In 2023, the Guyana-Venezuela dispute escalated dramatically when the Venezuelan government organized a national referendum about Essequibo.

On December 1st, the ICJ issued a provisional measure ordering Venezuela not to take any action that would alter the current situation on the ground or interfere with Guyana’s administration of the territory. Despite this ruling, Caracas held the plebiscite on December 3rd, posing five questions to the Venezuelan electorate about how which policies the government should have with regard to the region. According to official figures, more than 95 percent of voters supported the proposals, including the incorporation of Essequibo into Venezuelan territory and the granting of Venezuelan citizenship for its inhabitants. However, the legitimacy of the referendum was widely questioned, both due to its consultative nature and due to the absence of any vote within the disputed territory itself.

Following the referendum, President Nicolás Maduro announced a series of measures to implement its outcome, which were seen as direct threats to Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity:

• The unveiling of a new official map of Venezuela that incorporated the Essequibo region.
• The creation of the Venezuelan state of “Guayana Esequiba”, having the city of Tumeremo as its administrative capital.
• The establishment of a High Commission for the Defense of Guayana Esequiba.
• The granting of licenses to Venezuelan state-owned enterprises in the oil and mining sectors to operate in the region.

Because Guyana requested support from regional and international partners, the international response to these moves was swift. Several countries expressed concern over the developments. The United States conducted joint military overflights with Guyanese forces, signaling its support for Georgetown and the protection of the region’s stability. The United Kingdom also deployed a naval vessel to the area. These maneuvers were met with criticism from Venezuela and raised fears of an armed escalation. Brazil, which shares borders with both disputing nations, adopted a cautious stance, reinforcing military presence in its northern region while emphasizing the need to avoid conflict. In addition, the Brazilian government offered the nation’s capital to serve as a venue for further dialogue.

In response to growing tensions, diplomatic efforts were reactivated. On December 14th, the presidents of Guyana and Venezuela met in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, under the auspices of the CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and with participation from regional leaders, including Brazil’s special advisor for international affairs, Celso Amorim. The meeting resulted in the Argyle Declaration for Dialogue and Peace, in which both parties agreed to refrain from the use of force and to resolve the dispute in accordance with international law. They also committed to creating a joint commission of foreign ministers and technical experts and scheduled a follow-up meeting in Brazil.

While the Argyle Declaration succeeded in temporarily de-escalating the crisis, the underlying territorial disagreement remains unresolved. Venezuela has not renounced the measures taken after the referendum, and Guyana continues to assert its rights under the 1899 arbitral award, pending a final ruling from the ICJ. However, the events of 2023 possibly ensured that the more volatile phase of the Essequibo dispute was left behind. As of today, the eruption of conflict between the Venezuelans and the Guyanese remains highly unlikely, but tensions could rise again in the future, particularly when the ICJ decides the merit of the Essequibo case.

Conclusion

The Essequibo dispute, rooted in colonial-era boundaries and a contested arbitral award, has evolved into one of the most significant territorial controversies in present-day Latin America. While the region remained relatively stable for much of the twentieth century, recent discoveries of oil and other natural resources have dramatically raised the stakes. The economic value of Essequibo has turned a historical disagreement into a contemporary geopolitical issue, involving not only Venezuela and Guyana but also neighboring states and global powers.

As the International Court of Justice advances in its deliberations and both countries face growing internal and external pressures, the future of Essequibo will depend on their willingness to respect international norms, conduct negotiations, and prioritize fostering an atmosphere of peace over performing provocative acts.