–highlights Venezuela’s repeated defiance of ICJ orders
Guyana has told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Venezuela willfully and repeatedly violated provisional measure orders issued by the court, calling for “appropriate remedial measures” to be imposed on the Spanish-speaking nation.
International lawyer Edward Craven, who concluded Guyana’s first round of oral arguments on Monday in the Guyana v. Venezuela case, officially known as the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, urged judges of the court to order Venezuela to revoke the legislative, electoral and cartographic actions it has taken in defiance of the court’s provisional measures, beginning in December 2023.
His request to the court includes the maps it has produced depicting the Essequibo as Venezuelan territory, the Organic Law passed to formally incorporate the region, and the elections it conducted there, all of which occurred after the court had explicitly ordered Caracas to refrain from altering the status quo.
“These measures are requested because Venezuela is under the obligation by way of reparation for its breaches of the provisional measures, to reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if those breaches had not been committed,” Craven reasoned.
Craven told the court that Venezuela has made no effort to conceal its defiance. In fact, a press release issued by the Venezuelan government less than 48 hours before the hearings opened reaffirmed that Caracas does not recognise the court’s jurisdiction and will not be bound by any decision it renders.
He outlined a pattern of repeated and escalating non-compliance. Following the court’s unanimous provisional measures order of December 1, 2023, which directed Venezuela to refrain from any action that would modify the situation, Venezuela held its consultative referendum just two days later, then declared the creation of a so-called state of Guyana Essequiba days after that.
When Guyana returned to the court in March 2025 after Venezuela announced plans to elect a governor and legislative council for the purported state, the court again responded unanimously, reaffirming its earlier order on May 1, 2025, and issuing a new specific measure barring Venezuela from conducting or preparing elections in the disputed territory.
Venezuela again defied the order outright. The following day, Caracas issued a communique rejecting it. By May 25, elections had been held, and the Venezuelan President proclaimed that the people had elected a government for the territory.
“Those borders are, of course, binding, and they create international legal obligations for Venezuela,” Craven said. “The orders plainly have been violated, and this calls for appropriate remedial measures.”
“An order in these terms is a logical, reasonable, and legally inescapable consequence of Venezuela’s breaches. There can be no possible suggestion that such an order would be impossible or disproportionately burdensome for Venezuela – on the contrary, it would be simple and entirely straightforward to comply with,” he argued further.
Craven is among several distinguished and reputable lawyers representing Guyana in the court case. Venezuela will present its oral arguments on the merits of the case on Wednesday (May 6, 2026).
The ICJ is expected to determine the validity of the 1899 Award and the legal boundary between Guyana and Venezuela at the conclusion of the hearings.