-grants request for provisional measures ahead of Dec. 3 referendum

THE International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Friday issued “binding” orders on Venezuela to “refrain” from taking any actions that would threaten Guyana sovereignty over the Essequibo territory.

The decision was handed down orally by the President of the ICJ, Justice Joan E. Donoghue, at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. The written version was later uploaded to the court’s website.

In the ruling, the court ordered that pending the decision of the substantive case, Venezuela shall refrain from taking any action that would modify the situation that currently prevails over the territory in dispute, which Guyana administers and exercises control over.

As an additional measure, the court also ordered that “both parties refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the court or make it more difficult to resolve.”

Guyana had approached the World Court seeking the preservation and protection of its right to the territory awarded to it by way of the 1899 Award, pending the court’s determination of the validity of that Award as well as the integrity of its territory, or, alternatively, its right to the settlement by the court of the land boundary between it and Venezuela.

The ICJ president in the ruling pointed out that the court in its 2020 judgment had said that a land boundary controversy exists between the two parties. She pointed out that it was further observed that the territory which forms the object of that controversy was awarded to British Guiana in the 1899 Award.

“For these reasons, the court considers that Guyana’s right to sovereignty over the territory in question is plausible,” she said.

Turning her attention to the requirement of a link between the right claimed by Guyana that the court has found to be plausible, and the provisional measures requested, the ICJ president said that neither party has directly addressed this question.

However, she placed weight on one of the provisional measures requested by Guyana, which seeks to ensure that Venezuela does not “take any actions that are intended to prepare or allow for the exercise of sovereignty or de facto control over any territory that was awarded to British Guiana in the 1899 Award.”

As such, the court considered that this measure is aimed at protecting Guyana’s right, which the court has found to be “plausible.”

“The court concludes, therefore, that a link exists between the right claimed by Guyana that the court has found to be plausible and the above-mentioned requested provisional measure,” the ICJ President said.

Having previously determined that Guyana’s right to sovereignty over the territory awarded is plausible, and that there is a link between this right and one of the provisional measures requested, the court turned to the questions of whether irreparable prejudice could be caused to this right and whether there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to this right before the court gives its final decision.

SERIOUS RISK

The court noted that Venezuela stated during the oral proceedings that it “will not turn its back on what the people decide in the referendum” scheduled for December 3, 2023.

“On 24 October 2023, the President of Venezuela, Mr Nicolás Maduro Moros, publicly stated that the referendum ‘is the first time that all arguments -political, diplomatic, legal, historic, territorial – are given to our people so that we take a collective decision as a country. Other official statements suggest that Venezuela is taking steps with a view towards acquiring control over and administering the territory in dispute. For instance, on 6 November 2023, the Minister of Defence of Venezuela, General Vladimir Padrino López, made an appeal to “go to combat” with reference to the territory in question. Furthermore, Venezuelan military officials announced that Venezuela is taking concrete measures to build an airstrip to serve as a ‘logistical support point for the integral development of the Essequibo,’” the ICJ president said as she relaying some the evidence before the court.

The court considered that in light of the strong tension that currently characterises the relations between the parties, the circumstances described above present a serious risk of Venezuela acquiring and exercising control and administration of the territory in dispute in the present case.

The ICJ concluded that there is “a risk of irreparable prejudice to the right claimed by Guyana” in the present proceedings that the court has found reasonable.

The court further considered Venezuela’s expressed readiness to take action with regard to the territory in dispute at any moment following the referendum, which demonstrates that there is “urgency”, in the sense that there is “a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice” to Guyana’s plausible right before the court gives its final decision.

PROTECTION WARRANTED

The World Court concluded that from all of the above considerations that the conditions for the indication of provisional measures are met and it is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the court to indicate certain measures to protect the plausible right claimed by Guyana.

The court considered that pending the final decision in the case, Venezuela must refrain from taking any action which would modify that situation.

The urgency surrounding this ruling stemmed from Venezuela’s scheduled referendum on December 3, which prompted Guyana to seek provisional measures to safeguard its sovereignty over the Essequibo region.

The gravity of the situation is underlined by the potential harm posed by Venezuela’s actions, as outlined in the referendum, which includes rejecting the 1899 Arbitral Award, challenging the ICJ’s jurisdiction, and formally annexing the Essequibo Region.

The referendum also seeks to give Venezuelan citizenship and national identity cards to the Guyanese who live in that area and to develop the territory as part of Venezuela, “Guayana Esequiba.”

Venezuela’s Vice-President, Delcy Rodriguez, during the oral hearing at the court, had expressed her nation’s complete disregard for the ICJ’s authority in addressing the border controversy.

The genesis of the controversy dates back to the 1899 Arbitral Award, a landmark decision that delineated the land boundary between then British Guiana (now Guyana) and Venezuela.

Despite historical arbitration, tensions persisted, leading Guyana to approach the ICJ in 2018, seeking affirmation of the award’s legitimacy.

The ICJ’s provisional measures are binding on the parties involved. Under the UN Charter, all states are solemnly bound to comply with the court’s orders, which can be enforced by the UN Security Council.

The substantive case, which highlights the historical context and the 1899 Arbitral Award, remains before the World Court.

Guyana had reached out to the international community to call attention to Venezuela’s actions that are completely outside the norm of the rule of law, and which present a real threat to the peace and security of the Latin American and Caribbean Region.

In denouncing this referendum and taking this matter before the court, Guyana enjoyed the full, principled and unequivocal support of CARICOM, the Commonwealth and other partners from around the world.