Venezuela's Controversial Referendum on Essequibo Region: Examining the Historical Dispute and International Implications

The Venezuelan authorities neglect to advise their electorate of Articles 92 and 93 of the Charter of the United Nations. Article 92 states: “The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations” and Article 93 declares, “All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.” Not to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ is tantamount to a repudiation of the UN Charter.

Moreover, the ICJ has already twice decided that it has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 1899 award and the related land boundary between Venezuela and Guyana. The placing of the question in the referendum, in the manner in which it is framed, is a flagrant disregard for international law, the UN Charter and the ICJ.

It is clear that this contrived referendum is designed to lead the Venezuelan electorate into giving cover for the government’s decision to ignore the ICJ proceedings and, instead, to take unilateral action to “incorporate” Essequibo into “the territory of Venezuela”.

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) rightly responded to this situation by noting that “two of the questions approved to be posed in the referendum, if answered in the affirmative, would authorise the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to embark on the annexation of territory, which constitutes part of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, and to create a state within Venezuela known as Guyana Essequibo”. Further, CARICOM reaffirmed that “international law strictly prohibits the government of one state from unilaterally seizing, annexing or incorporating the territory of another state. An affirmative vote as aforesaid opens the door to the possible violation of this fundamental tenet of international law”.

Against this background, it seems that the Venezuelan government is convinced that its chances of a favourable decision from the ICJ of its claims are very slim. Therefore, it is moving to annexation, a blatant violation of the Charter of the UN and the Organisation of American States.

Venezuela has reached this point after many efforts to scuttle the ICJ process, by asserting that the controversy with Guyana could be settled by dialogue and negotiation between the two states. In making this assertion, Venezuela ignores the 50 years of joint commissions, direct negotiations, and UN good offices mediation which all failed. It also ignores that the present ICJ process, which flowed directly from the 1966 Geneva Agreement in which both Venezuela and Guyana agreed, under Article IV (1), that the UN Secretary-General shall make the decision concerning “one of the means of settlement provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations”. The secretary-general decided on the ICJ.

And, Venezuela had every opportunity to participate actively in the proceedings even after it lost its legal arguments objecting to the Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, Venezuela’s call for dialogue and negotiation is another gambit to avoid the judicial means of settlement.

International law and the ICJ process are the legitimate and peaceful pathways to a definitive settlement of the land boundary.

Any attempt to unilaterally incorporate Essequibo into Venezuela as is promoted by the planned referendum, or any subsequent military action in furtherance of such a contrived referendum, will rightly be met by international odium, condemnation and action.

Ronald Sanders is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS.