ICJ asks Venezuela to explain recent incursion into Guyana’s EEZ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has given the Government of Venezuela, led by President Nicholás Maduro, until the end of March to present its argument regarding its recent incursion into Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

This directive follows the Guyana Government’s request for the ICJ to block Venezuela’s attempt to hold unlawful elections in the Essequibo region, which accounts for two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass. The Guyanese Government informed the ICJ that such actions by Venezuela “flagrantly violate” the provisional measures issued by the court in December 2023.

In a brief interview on Monday, Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Minister Hugh Todd stated that Venezuela has been given a specific timeframe to respond.

“There’s a timeframe for (Venezuela) to submit their arguments based on what we have submitted… I can’t recall if it’s the 17th or the 24th of March, but there’s a timeframe within which they need to respond to the provisional measure… Once they submit, then the panel of Judges will deliberate and then they will issue the order,” the Minister indicated.

On March 1, a Venezuelan naval vessel entered Guyana’s waters where ExxonMobil’s Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels are located, in an act of intimidation that has since been roundly condemned by Guyana and the international community.

Additionally, Venezuela has indicated plans to hold elections on May 25, 2025, to appoint a Governor and other leaders for Guyana’s Essequibo region.

According to Todd, sensitisation campaigns aimed at keeping Guyanese informed are ongoing, especially in Region Two (Pomeroon-Supenaam).

“It’s to sensitise them on the issue, and with regard to the protection of our sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the maintenance of it. So, we sensitise them on some of the measures that we’re taking, but the emphasis will be focused on the case before the court…We’re confident that we will get a ruling in our favour. So, our focus is on the rule of international law and the case before the court,” he said.

Following the Venezuelan vessel’s incursion, the Guyana Government activated a series of responses, including the deployment of military resources offshore, engaging the international community and sending a formal protest note to Caracas.

Guyana reminded that all the activities which the Government of Guyana has authorised to be undertaken in its EEZ are entirely within the maritime area appurtenant to the sovereign coastal territory of Guyana, as defined by the Arbitral Award of 1899.

Moreover, just a few weeks prior, six members of the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) came under attack by Venezuelan men on the border. The February 17, 2025 attack injured the six troops – all with gunshot wounds. Initial reports had indicated that some of the Venezuelan men died, after the soldiers returned fire.

Only recently, Guyana wrote the ICJ to block Venezuela’s attempt to conduct elections in the Essequibo region. The Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Ministry filed in the Registry of the ICJ, a Request for the indication of provisional measures in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v Venezuela).

Guyana is asking the court to order Venezuela to refrain from any acts within or affecting its sovereign territory, including the Essequibo region. Guyana informed the World Court that the planned Venezuelan elections would inevitably be preceded by preparatory acts, including acts within Guyana’s Essequibo region, affecting the Guyanese population and Guyana’s sovereignty over its territory.

This is the second time Guyana has sought provisional measures from the World Court, which is currently hearing the case to settle the decades-old border controversy between the two South American neighbours.

Guyana initiated the case back in March 2018, asking the ICJ to affirm in a final and binding ruling that the 1899 Arbitral Award, which determined the international boundary with Venezuela, is legally valid.