VENEZUELA’S Vice-President, Delcy Rodriguez, expressed her nation’s complete disregard for the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ)’s authority in addressing the ongoing border controversy with Guyana.
Recent developments have heightened the geopolitical situation, as Venezuela, through its National Electoral Council, unveiled plans for a “Consultative Referendum” on December 3, 2023.
Rodriguez expressed her country’s position during the ICJ’s hearing of Guyana’s request for provisional measures, to restrict any action that would result in the annexation of the country’s Essequibo as a result of the upcoming referendum.
In her presentation to the World Court on November 15, the Venezuelan Vice-President, in defiance, began her presentation by emphasising that Venezuela’s participation in the hearing should not be misconstrued as recognition of the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the territorial controversy concerning “Guayana Esequiba”.
“I wish to begin by emphasising that our participation in this hearing in no way implies recognition of the jurisdiction of this honourable court over the territorial dispute concerning Guayana Esequiba…,” she said.
Rodriguez went on to tell the World Court: “Nothing will prevent the referendum scheduled for the December 3 from being held.”
Venezuela’s position is contrary to the stance of CARICOM, the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the Organization of American States (OAS), and other reputable institutions and countries, which have expressed their firm views that the judicial process should be respected as a solution to the controversy.
The genesis of the controversy goes back to the 1899 Arbitral Award, a landmark decision that delineated the land boundary between British Guiana (now Guyana) and Venezuela.
However, despite the historic arbitration, tensions have persisted, with Venezuela repeatedly challenging the validity of the award.
In 2018, Guyana took a decisive step by approaching the International Court of Justice (ICJ), seeking affirmation of the legitimacy of the 1899 Arbitral Award.
Venezuela, taking a defiant stance, initially claimed the ICJ lacked jurisdiction, a contention flatly rejected by the international court in a crucial ruling in December 2020. The door was thus opened for the ICJ to delve into the merit of the substantive case.
Even as this substantive case remains before the court, Guyana contends that the recent announcement of a referendum by Venezuela is a thinly veiled attempt by the Bolivarian Republic to gather support for abandoning the ongoing ICJ proceedings, and unilaterally assert control over the Essequibo region.
In response, Guyana swiftly approached the ICJ seeking urgent provisional measures to prevent any action by Venezuela that could jeopardise the status quo until the court reaches a final verdict on the matter.
The ICJ is expected to rule on Guyana’s request for provisional measures to prevent Venezuela from proceeding with its planned referendum on the Essequibo. Meanwhile, the substantive case, highlighting the historical context and the 1899 Arbitral Award, remains before the court.