Home Top Stories Venezuela border controversy: Venezuela’s referendum a threat to regional peace, ICJ’s authority...
…as Guyana presents arguments to block Dec 3 vote
By Jarryl Bryan
In an effort to stop Venezuela’s December 3 referendum aimed at annexing Guyana’s Essequibo territory, the Guyana Government on Tuesday presented its case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by urging the Court to not only protect Guyana’s rights but also its own authority which Venezuela is trying to undermine.
Guyana’s agent in the case, Carl Greenidge, presented an opening statement on behalf of the country. Venezuela’s representative, Vice President Delcy Rodrigues, was present, though she did not make any presentations, as Venezuela has been given Wednesday, November 15, to make its oral arguments to the challenge to its referendum.
Greenidge reminded the ICJ that it has already twice affirmed its jurisdiction to mediate the boundary controversy between Guyana and Venezuela. He pointed out to the Court that Venezuela, by attempting to pre-empt the Court’s ruling and take extra-judicial action, is challenging the Court’s authority and by extension, the United Nations’ ability to ensure a resolution of the matter.
“Only the Court can protect Guyana and its rights at issue in this case, from the irreparable harm that would certainly befall it if Venezuela is permitted to cross that threshold into the seizure and incorporation of the territory, whose ultimate fate is to be determined by the Court, not by the unilateral action of either of the parties.”
“Only the Court can prevent the imminent annexation of tens of thousands of square kilometres of Guyanese territory. In these circumstances, Guyana looks to the Court to safeguard these rights by applying the principles of international law faithfully, fairly, and impartially,” Greenidge said.
The Court was also informed of Venezuela’s mobilisation of its military on the border with Guyana. Meanwhile, Guyana’s legal arguments were presented by Attorneys-at-Law Paul Reichler and Professor Emeritus of the University of Paris Nanterre, Allain Pellet. Reichler laid out not only the harm that Venezuela’s referendum would cause but also laid bare Venezuela’s efforts to prejudice the case.
“Venezuela has made clear that the purpose of this referendum is not merely to assess public opinion. It is to obtain popular support for decisions that the Government has already made and a licence to act on those decisions,” Reichler said, quoting the words of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on October 23, 2023, when he had said the referendum would enable his Government to take a collective decision on Essequibo.
“The nature of that collective decision is revealed by the questions themselves, both in their form and their content. They are far from neutral, as would be the case in a true test of public opinion. It does not take an expert on public polling to see that these five questions are deliberately crafted to leave no possible outcome other than an overwhelming mandate for the Government to take actions it has already decided on.”
Misinformation
Reichler pointed out that even if the Venezuelan public does not know anything about the case, questions deliberately framed in a way to imply that Venezuela has been defrauded and stripped of “their Essequibo”, thereby painting Venezuela as the injured party, would only mislead the people.
“There is no doubt that Venezuela’s intention is to produce another overwhelming popular mandate, this one to endorse not only its rejection not only of the 1899 Arbitral Award but of the court and whatever judgement you may ultimately issue on the merits of this case,” the lawyer said.
The lawyer told the court of the tragic fate that awaits Guyana should Venezuela be allowed to go forward and act on the inevitable results of the referendum, particularly question 5 which would seek to annex two-thirds of Guyana.
Meanwhile, Professor Pellet provided evidence on the actions of the Venezuelan National Guard, a heavily armed contingent which patrolled the Cuyuni River in Essequibo on October 3. According to him, this Venezuelan contingent claimed to be patrolling in “our Essequibo” and parroting the Venezuelan slogan that “the sun of Venezuela was born in Essequibo.”
“Even more ominously, Venezuela’s Minister of Defence had posted a series of tweets threatening armed intervention against Guyana and its licensees in these maritime areas,” Pellet said, adding that Guyana is asking the Court to ensure that its future judgements on the border controversy are enforceable.
“It would not be enforceable, Madam President, were Venezuela to follow through with its resolution in its present form. Nor could your judgement be applied if Venezuela were to convene the electoral body to rule… and prejudge the solution that the Court is called upon to decide,” the lawyer added.
Guyana is currently seeking an injunction from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Venezuela’s efforts to annex Essequibo via a referendum planned for December 3. Following the determination of Guyana’s application against the referendum, hearings on the case’s merits are the next stage. A final decision on the substantive case might not come for years.
After years of failed good offices process via the UN, Guyana is seeking a final and binding judgement to reinforce that the 1899 Arbitral Award remains valid and binding on all parties, as well as legal affirmation that Guyana’s Essequibo region, which contains much of the country’s natural resources, belongs to Guyana and not Venezuela.
Guyana’s Spanish-speaking neighbour has laid claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass in the Essequibo region, and to a portion of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in which nearly 11 billion barrels of oil have been discovered largely by United States oil giant ExxonMobil.
