On April 6, 2023, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) rendered its judgment on Venezuela’s preliminary objection in Guyana v. Venezuela. Venezuela argued that the United Kingdom was an indispensable third party to the case, rendering Guyana’s application inadmissible under the Monetary Gold principle. Pursuant to the Monetary Gold principle, the Court may not adjudicate a case where, as logical prerequisite, it would need to pronounce upon the legal interests of a third state. Guyana contended that Venezuela’s preliminary objection was inadmissible and that, in any event, the Monetary Gold principle did not apply. The Court rejected both Guyana’s claims on the admissibility of the preliminary objection (by a unanimous vote) and Venezuela’s preliminary objection on the merits (by 14 to 1). In this context, the ICJ made two significant findings: First, the Monetary Gold principle does not concern the lack of jurisdiction, but rather constitutes a bar to the exercise thereof. Second, the Monetary Gold principle does not apply if the purportedly indispensable third state consents to the proceedings.