Guatemala’s claims for Belize’s land are weak and should be rejected by the International Court of Justice. Relations have become so contentious that a referendum in Guatemala (held on 15/04/2018) resulted in a 95% favour of sending the dispute to the ICJ, whilst the Belizean referendum (held on 08/05/2019) resulted in a lesser yet still 55% majority. Bulmer-Thomas argues that this is understandable ‘as Belize faces the possibility of losing a large chunk of territory that it already occupies, while Guatemala only stands to lose a claim to territory that it does not actually possess’. Like the many claims to the throne in the Wars of the Roses, over the last few centuries Guatemala’s claims have weakened and wavered. The cause of the territory dispute, arguably, dates back to the vagueness of the Godolphin Treaty (1670) in which Spain allowed England to maintain its settled territories in the Western World yet did not define such areas. After the Treaty of Versailles (1783), Britain agreed to abandon its forces in the disputed area and give Spain sovereignty, however the Baymen (settlers of the now Belize), successfully revolted against their military attempts. When the Spanish Empire began to disintegrate (1820’s), the UK recognised the English-speaking land into the British Empire in 1862, naming it British Honduras. Conversely, the independent republic(s) of Guatemala (and Mexico) unjustifiably claimed inheritance of Spain’s sovereign rights of the area, despite never occupying it. Under the Wyke-Aycinena Treaty (1859), Guatemala agreed to recognise British Honduras whilst the UK promised to build a road across the border. Nearly a century later (1940), Guatemala claimed this treaty was void because the UK had not complied with such promised economic assistance and therefore they would withdraw their previous recognition and revert to claiming the territory due to inheritance. However, international law holds that the treaty is only voidable, not completely void, as no material breaches have been made. After Belize’s rightful process of self-determination (1964-1981) that wasn’t just supported but demanded by the UN, Guatemala’s claims are even more indefensible thanks to the international law principle of uti possidetis juris that grants a newly-formed sovereign state to retain the borders that their preceding dependent area had pre-independence. Furthermore, the Belizean government were never involved in the 1859 treaty meaning they are not legally bound to its clauses. Despite the clarity of the law, no agreement between Belize and Guatemala has been reached with military threats rising and falling over the last 40 years. The contentious issue is now in the hands of the ICJ but I found it extremely evident when visiting both countries at the time of the Belizean referendum (in May 2019) that Belize is not Guatemala’s for the taking. Guatemala’s unjustifiable claim of treaty breach that stems from the weak claim of inheritance is merely a mask to cover its power-hungry ambitions. Bulmer-Thomas, Victor (2019). ‘Why Belize is likely to prevail in its territorial dispute with Guatemala’, World Politics Review. Accessible at: https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/insights/27884/territorial-dispute-between-belize-and-guatemala-who-is-likely-to-prevail The Editors (2020). ‘Update: Belize vs. Guatemala Dispute’, Political Geography. Accessible at: https://www.polgeonow.com/2020/04/guatemala-belize-update-icj-court-case.html