NOTING that the European Union (EU) does not support any “unilateral action” that can escalate the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy, the Union’s Ambassador to Guyana René van Nes has said that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the appropriate place to settle the matter.

During a press conference on Friday, the EU Ambassador said: “The position of the EU here is that we strongly feel that international law and multilateral institutions are the appropriate framework for addressing international disputes.”

“We very clearly refer to the ICJ as the agreed mechanism to deal with this situation, and we call on all parties to avoid anything that will escalate the situation,” he said before emphasising that both parties must adhere to international law.

The Guyana-Venezuela border controversy has been ongoing for decades, and despite the ICJ ruling that it will proceed to hear the case which was filed by Guyana, the Spanish-speaking nation continues to claim over two-thirds of Guyana’s territory.

On September 21, the Venezuelan National Assembly set December 3 for a referendum on the status of the Essequibo Region, which is part of the sovereign territory of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana.

Guyana subsequently approached the ICJ requesting provisional measures to challenge Venezuela’s moves, while awaiting a final ruling on the substantive matter that is before the court.

In April of this year, the World Court ruled that the case Guyana brought before it seeking to affirm the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award settling the boundaries between Guyana and Venezuela was admissible.

This meant that the court could move forward with hearing the substantive case on its merits, of whether the arbitral award settling the boundaries of the two countries is valid and binding.

The ruling marked the second time that the international court had rejected jurisdictional objections raised by Venezuela.
Guyana moved to the ICJ with its case in March 2018, challenging the non-participating Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela over its disagreement on the legal validity and binding effect of that award.