Guyana submits evidence to World Court that Venezuela plans to seize Essequibo

Last Updated on Tuesday, 14 November 2023, 7:05 by Denis Chabrol

Guyana on Tuesday submitted clear evidence to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Venezuela is planning to seize Essequibo County by force after obtaining a “preordained” popular vote in the referendum on December 3, 2023.

Attorney-at-Law Paul Reichler presented a number of Social Media text and video posts by President Nicolas Maduro, Defence Minister Vladímir Padrino López and military personnel that they were preparing to ignore the ICJ, building a landing strip to take action against Guyana and would engage in combat.

Mr Reichler justified Guyana’s decision to swiftly seek provisional measures- essentially to block the referendum because of the implications for Guyana’s continued control of Essequibo even if the ICJ reaffirms that the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award that settled the land boundary between the two countries. “Urgency is shown by the impending referendum to be held less than three weeks from now, which would be the trigger for the execution of Venezuela’s annexation is plans and by the preparations of the national Bolivarian Armed Forces to secure Venezuela’s claim to the territory,” he said. The lawyer for Guyana said the country’s right to Essequibo would be “irreparably prejudiced” and would suffer “irrecoverable loss of the territorial rights” if the ICJ finds that the former British colony has rights to that county.

One of the questions seeks an inevitable vote for the granting of Venezuelan citizenship and identity cards in conformity with the Geneva agreement and international law, consequently, incorporating state on the map of Venezuelan territory.

Mr Reichler noted that Venezuela has made clear that the purpose of that referendum would not merely be to assess public opinion, but to obtain popular support for decisions that the government has already made, and a licence to act on those decisions.

Also appearing for Guyana was Professor Alain Pellet who told the ICJ that on October 3, the Venezuelan National Guard was patrolling the Cuyuni River in the Essequibo region, heavily armed and claiming that “we are patrolling in our Essequibo” as part of our Territorial Defence System and that “our military troops are patrolling as a single unit exercising our sovereignty because the sun of Venezuela was born in the Essequibo.”

Professor Pellet also told the ICJ that there was no application or expectation on the referendum questions related to maritime issues as the court had already ruled that it had no such jurisdiction to deal with maritime issues. Those, he acknowledged, would have to be dealt with through peaceful negotiations by the two countries or settlement through impartial international adjudication or arbitration or a new case to the ICJ. The Professor noted that “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.

Guyana’s Agent in the case before the ICJ, Carl Greenidge earlier told the judicial body that it “stands as the guardian to that gateway” against harm. He noted the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has said that international law strictly prohibits the government of one state from unilaterally seizing, annexing or incorporating the territory of another state and affirmative vote.

Guyana wants the Court to indicate the following provisional measures:
“1. Venezuela shall not proceed with the Consultative Referendum planned for 3 December 2023 in its present form;

2. In particular, Venezuela shall not include the First, Third or Fifth questions in the Consultative Referendum;

3. Nor shall Venezuela include within the ‘Consultative Referendum’ planned, or any other public referendum, any question encroaching upon the legal issues to be determined by the Court in its Judgment on the Merits, including (but not limited
to):
a. the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Award;
b. sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River, and the boundary
established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement; and the purported creation of the State of ‘Guayana Esequiba’ and any associated measures, including the granting of Venezuelan citizenship and national identity cards.

4. Venezuela shall not take any actions that are intended to prepare or allow the exercise of sovereignty or de facto control over any territory that was awarded to  British Guiana in the 1899 Arbitral Award.

5. Venezuela shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.”