Amid escalating tensions, Guyana has applied to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for urgent provisional measures to counter Venezuela’s planned referendum of December 3rd which includes a question on the creation of a state comprising this country’s county of Essequibo.
Guyana’s appeal to the Holland-based ICJ, known as the World Court, has also seen it urging CARICOM and the international community to continue reminding Venezuela of its obligations under international law.
Caracas elevated the border controversy to new heights when it announced the referendum leading Georgetown to charge that it was attempting to annex Essequibo despite the fact that the matter between the two countries is now before the ICJ.
Yesterday, the World Court issued a release on Guyana’s application. It said that Georgetown had filed in the Registry of the ICJ a Request for the indication of provisional measures in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court.
In its request, the ICJ noted that Guyana stated that “[o]n 23 October 2023, the Government of Venezuela, through its National Electoral Council, published a list of five questions that it plans to put before the Venezuelan people in a . . . ‘Consultative Referendum’ on 3 December 2023”.
These questions are:
Do you agree to reject by all means in accordance with the law the line fraudulently imposed by the Paris Arbitration Award of 1899 that seeks to deprive us of our Guayana Esequiba?
Do you support the 1966 Geneva Agreement as the only valid legal instrument to reach a practical and satisfactory solution for Venezuela and Guyana regarding the controversy over the territory of Guayana Esequiba?
Do you agree with Venezuela’s historical position of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the territorial controversy over Guayana Esequiba?
Do you agree to oppose by all means in accordance with the law Guyana’s claim to unilaterally dispose of a sea pending delimitation illegally and in violation of international law?
Do you agree with the creation of the Guayana Esequiba state and the development of an accelerated plan for the comprehensive care of the current and future population of that territory that includes, among others, the granting of citizenship and Venezuelan identity card in accordance with the Geneva Agreement and international law, consequently incorporating said state on the map of Venezuelan territory?
According to Guyana, the purpose of this referendum is “to obtain responses that would support Venezuela’s decision to abandon [the current proceedings before the Court], and to resort instead to unilateral measures to ‘resolve’ the controversy with Guyana by formally annexing and integrating into Venezuela all of the territory at issue in these proceedings, which comprises more than two-thirds of Guyana”.
The release said that Guyana requested the Court to indicate the following provisional measures:
“1. Venezuela shall not proceed with the Consultative Referendum planned for
3 December 2023 in its present form;
2. In particular, Venezuela shall not include the First, Third or Fifth questions in the Consultative Referendum;
3. Nor shall Venezuela include within the ‘Consultative Referendum’ planned, or any other public referendum, any question encroaching upon the legal issues to be determined by the Court in its Judgment on the Merits, including (but not limited to):
a. the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Award;
b. sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River, and the boundary
established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement; and
c. the purported creation of the State of ‘Guayana Esequiba’ and any associated measures, including the granting of Venezuelan citizenship and national identity cards.
4. Venezuela shall not take any actions that are intended to prepare or allow the exercise of sovereignty or de facto control over any territory that was awarded to British Guiana in the 1899 Arbitral Award.
5. Venezuela shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.”
In its statement yesterday, the Government of Guyana said that one week ago, it issued a statement denouncing the aggressive new measures taken by Venezuela in furtherance of its “groundless and unlawful territorial claim” to Guyana’s Essequibo Region. These new measures included a purported national referendum to ratify the Venezuelan government’s apparent decision to withdraw from the present judicial proceedings in the ICJ, and proceed unilaterally to incorporate Essequibo into its own national territory as an integral part of Venezuela.
Guyana, the government statement said, properly characterized this naked threat of territorial aggression as: “nothing less than the annexation of Guyana’s territory, in blatant violation of the most fundamental rules of the UN Charter, the OAS Charter and general international law.”
Guyana’s statement added that: “Such a seizure of Guyana’s territory would constitute the international crime of aggression.
Following Guyana’s statement, CARICOM issued a strongly worded denunciation of Venezuela’s measures, fully supporting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guyana.
Yesterday, in further response to Venezuela’s sinister plan for seizing Guyanese territory, Guyana said it on Monday sought the urgent protection of the ICJ, by filing with the Court a Request for Provisional Measures. In that Request, the release said that Guyana seeks from the Court an Order preventing Venezuela from taking any action to seize, acquire or encroach upon, or assert or exercise sovereignty over, the Essequibo Region or any other part of Guyana’s national territory, pending the Court’s final determination of the validity of the Arbitral Award that established the land boundary between our two States, and the final and binding nature of that boundary. Guyana has no doubt of the validity of that Arbitral Award and the land boundary, which Venezuela accepted and recognized as the international boundary for more than 60 years, the statement said.
Because of the urgency of the matter, Guyana has asked the Court to schedule oral hearings on its Request at the earliest possible date in advance of December 3, 2023, the date Venezuela has set for its “sham” referendum.
Guyana insists, as does CARICOM, the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and Organization of American States, and the entire international community, that the controversy over the validity of the Arbitral Award and the land boundary must be resolved by the International Court of Justice, which will assure a just, peaceful, binding and permanent solution to this matter, in accordance with international law. Georgetown noted that the Court itself has determined, in two separate Orders, that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve this matter, and that it will do so. Twice Venezuela has formally objected to the Court’s jurisdiction, and both times the Court overwhelmingly rejected Caracas’ objections.
In the interim, pending the oral hearing on its request and the issuance of the Court’s Order, Guyana urged CARICOM and the international community to continue reminding Venezuela of its obligations under international law, including its obligation to accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction.
Meanwhile yesterday, Venezuela continued its belligerence. According to Telesur, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez yesterday denounced what she called new provocations from Guyana following that country’s resort to the International Court of Justice. She also announced that Caracas is bringing the matter to the attention of the United Nations Secretary Antonio Guterres.
During a press conference in Caracas, Telesur said that Rodriguez stated that Guyana’s request for “precautionary measures” related to the referendum on Essequibo, which Venezuela will hold on December 3, constitutes an attempt to undermine the Bolivarian Constitution.
“Guyana seeks the International Court of Justice’s intervention to prevent Venezuela from holding this referendum, which the Bolivarian nation wishes to conduct to demonstrate its interest in defending its territorial rights in an area rich in natural resources and biodiversity.
“They are trying to give orders to Venezuela. What happened yesterday, when they asked not to hold the referendum, seems laughable. They are violating the United Nations Charter. They violate the right to self-determination,” Rodriguez argued.
In March 2018, Guyana filed its application with the ICJ to confirm the validity and binding effect of the Arbitral Award of 1899 on the boundary between the two countries and the subsequent 1905 agreement, following the decision by the UN Secretary-General Guterres to choose the ICJ as the next means of resolving the controversy which stems from Venezuela’s contention that the award was null and void.
In its Application of March 29, 2018 before the ICJ, Guyana requested that the Court adjudge and declare that:
“(a) The 1899 Award is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela, and the boundary established by that Award and the 1905 Agreement is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela;
(b) Guyana enjoys full sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River and the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement, and Venezuela enjoys full sovereignty over the territory west of that boundary; Guyana and Venezuela are under an obligation to fully respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement;
(c) Venezuela shall immediately withdraw from and cease its occupation of the eastern half of the Island of Ankoko, and each and every other territory which is recognized as Guyana’s sovereign territory in accordance with the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement;
(d) Venezuela shall refrain from threatening or using force against any person and/or company licensed by Guyana or engage in economic or commercial activity in Guyanese territory as determined by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, or in any maritime areas appurtenant to such territory over which Guyana has sovereignty or exercises sovereign rights, and shall not interfere with any Guyanese or Guyanese-authorised activities in those areas;
(e) Venezuela is internationally responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights, and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.”
Guyana’s recourse to the ICJ came after decades of stalemate in its border controversy with Venezuela. While Venezuela had said it was not participating in the process, it was a part of the case management process. Its Vice President Rodríguez had told the ICJ that her country’s participation was “as a courtesy, not as a party in this procedure.”
On 7 June 2022, however, Caracas joined the proceedings when it raised preliminary objections to the admissibility of the case before the Court. Hearings on this matter were heard by the ICJ in November last year. Lawyers presented arguments for Guyana and Venezuela over several days.
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in April 1946.
