Breaks down consequences of Venezuela’s actions
IN a callous move that has heightened regional tensions, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s recent declarations asserting control over Guyana’s Essequibo region have sparked international concerns and engagement, which can lead to sanctions being handed down on its population.

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, on Tuesday sheds light on the legal intricacies and potential consequences that could follow Venezuela if they do not abide by the orders of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
On Tuesday, President Dr. Irfaan Ali took swift action in response to Maduro’s claims on the Essequibo oil-rich region. President Ali has not only informed the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, but also engaged with the international community.

The Guyana Defence Force (GDF) is on full alert, collaborating with foreign military counterparts, including the United States Southern Command (US SOUTHCOM).
Nandlall explained that Maduro’s recent announcements follow the controversial December 3 referendum, in which he asserted victory over the Essequibo region.

Despite the ICJ ruling just days earlier explicitly prohibiting Venezuela from seizing control of the Essequibo, Maduro unveiled plans to redraw his country’s map, asserting territorial dominance.
“President Maduro, in his usual bravado, has said that the Venezuelan government will move to the sixth step. We don’t know what that means. But the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued a clear prohibition against Venezuela from taking any steps whatsoever to interfere with or enter upon that piece of land called Essequibo, which the Court has found, as a preliminary finding, is under the administration and control of the cooperative Republic of Guyana,” he said.

The Attorney General, while providing key insights into the legal ramifications of Venezuela’s actions, highlighted the “binding” nature of ICJ judgments, quoting Article 94 of the United Nations Charter, which mandates member states’ compliance with the court’s decisions.
He underscored the significance of the ICJ’s provisional measures, stating that “any breach by Venezuela would not merely be a violation of a court order but a subversion of the court’s process.”

He pointed out that the ICJ’s integrity, along with the reputation of the United Nations itself, is at stake, especially since the proceedings were initiated based on the UN Secretary-General’s recommendation.
“If an order of its principal arm is violated with indignity and with impunity. More so since that it is the Secretary General of that organisation, recommended the matter to the International Court of Justice. For those reasons alone. I believe that no breach or violation of the court’s order will be condoned or tolerated in any form or fashion,” Nandlall said.

Mechanisms for Enforcement
Addressing concerns about enforcing ICJ decisions, Nandlall outlined the mechanisms available. While highlighting the critical role of non-military measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter, he explained that the Security Council can recommend or decide on various measures to ensure compliance.

These may range from economic sanctions to travel restrictions.
“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations,” he said while citing the section.

He explained that the UN Security Council can call on its members of states—some 250 countries—to enforce, which will mean doom for any recalcitrance state.
Furthermore, Nandlall pointed to Article 42, which authorises military enforcement action in cases where non-military measures prove inadequate.
He cited past instances where the Security Council utilised military force to enforce ICJ judgments, emphasising the political and economic costs for states that defy court decisions.

Under Article 42, Nandlall explained that “should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate. It may take such actions by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockades and other operations by air, sea or land forces of members of the United Nations. This is the military type of reaction where the nonmilitary type sanctions have failed or have proven to be inadequate.”

Nandlall reminded the Spanish-speaking country that the Security Council has the authority to enforce ICJ decisions and it can take a range of measures to ensure compliance, including economic sanctions, travel restrictions and the use of military force.
“The court, the UN Security Council has done that in many cases. I can give you two: the oil platform case and the curfew channel where the United Nations Security Council enforced the ICJ judgments in these two cases. The political costs of non-compliance have to be taken into account by potentially recalcitrant states,” he said.

Venezuela’s Folly and International Implications
The Attorney General urged Venezuela to uphold international law and reminded them that the ICJ is not a “toothless poodle.”
“I do not believe that it will allow its processes to be trampled upon, denigrated, undermined and subverted by Venezuela. After all, that is really still before that court, and the case is still ongoing,” he added
Nandlall expressed confidence in the international community’s response, suggesting that Venezuela’s actions could lead to severe consequences.

He noted that “any attempt by Venezuela to annex or invade the disputed territory would not only breach the court’s order but also undermine the ongoing legal process.”
According to Nandlall, if Venezuela dares to act in a manner contrary to what the court has ordered, then it is not merely the breach of a court order but is the subversion of the court process and international laws.

Significantly, Nandlall highlighted the role of the people and the army of Venezuela, pointing to their potential resistance to Maduro’s directives.
He suggested that their refusal to participate in the recent referendum signalled a reluctance to endure additional suffering, given the nation’s existing challenges, including sanctions, economic turmoil, and a mass exodus of citizens.

“They (Venezuelans) have recognised the folly of what Maduro is inviting them to do. And that is why I believe that by their absence, and by their refusal to vote, they are sending a clear signal to Mr. Maduro they are not prepared to travel this path. After all, they are reeling under sanctions already. The nation is in disintegration they’re leaving the country by the 1000s per day. There is starvation. There’s a breakdown of social services in the country.

“The people are facing the brunt of that. If more sanctions are to be imposed. They will be facing the brunt of the suffering and suffrage that will flow from them…That is why I believe they have demonstrated a good sense and have withheld participation from this fanciful gimmick or referendum executed by President Maduro and his government.” he explained.
He pointed out that as tension escalates, Guyana’s legal stance remains firm, backed by international law and the recent ICJ ruling. However, subverting this, he warned, has potential consequences of Venezuela’s actions, both legally and diplomatically.

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 substantive case, which highlights the historical context and the 1899 Arbitral Award, remains before the World Court.
Guyana has 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.
Guyana enjoys the full, principled and unequivocal support of CARICOM, the Commonwealth and other partners from around the world.