Paris Arbitral Award

This event led to the signing of Geneva Agreement on 17 February 1966, between both parties plus the presence of the local government of British Guiana, close to receiving independence, at which time it would replace the United Kingdom in the issue of the territorial differendum with Venezuela.

[1] In January 1896, the British government decided in effect to recognise the US right to intervene in the boundary dispute and accepted arbitration in principle without insisting on the Schomburgk Line as a basis for negotiation.

[9] Britain's key argument was that prior to Venezuela's independence, Spain had not taken effective possession of the disputed territory and said that the local Indians had had alliances with the Dutch, which gave them a sphere of influence that the British acquired in 1814.

[11] In accordance with Article XIII of the Treaty of Washington, the Paris Arbitral Award was to be considered a "full, perfect, and final settlement"[12] to the border dispute, as agreed upon by Venezuela and the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

The first deviation from the Schomburgk line was that Venezuela's territory included Barima Point at the mouth of the Orinoco, giving it undisputed control of the river and thus the ability to levy duties on Venezuelan commerce.

[15] Though the Venezuelans were keenly disappointed with the outcome, they honoured their counsel for their efforts (their delegation's Secretary, Severo Mallet-Prevost, received the Order of the Liberator in 1944), and abided by the award.

[15] The Anglo-Venezuelan boundary dispute asserted for the first time a more outward-looking American foreign policy, particularly in the Americas, marking the United States as a world power.

US Secretary of State Richard Olney in January 1897 negotiated an arbitration treaty with the British diplomat Julian Pauncefote.

However, half a century later, the publication of an alleged political deal between Russia and Britain led Venezuela to reassert its claims.

That reopened the issues, with Mallet-Prevost surmising a political deal between Russia and Britain from the subsequent private behaviour of the judges.

Mallet-Prevost said that the American judges and Venezuelan counsel were disgusted at the situation and considered the 3-2 option with a strongly-worded minority opinion but ultimately went along with Martens to avoid depriving Venezuela of valuable territory to which it was entitled.