Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy: Guyana presents border controversy case at ICJ

 Sir Shridath Ramphal speaking at today's hearing

Sir Shridath Ramphal speaking at today’s hearing

Sir Shridath Ramphal with support from several international lawyers, this morning argued before the International Court of Justice (World Court) that it has the jurisdiction to decide that the Paris Award which settled the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela is binding.

In his presentation to the Court, Ramphal maintained that a juridical settlement of this matter is the only recourse remaining as Guyana has exhausted all other measures including those provided for in the 1966 Geneva Agreement.       

He noted that Agreement grants the Secretary General of the United Nations the right where other means of resolution have failed from a list in Section 36 of the Agreement.

The Secretary General, Ramphal stressed, has selected this Court.

Guyana’s case is based in the plain text of the Geneva Agreement by which the parties expressly consented to accept the decision of the SG on the means of resolution of their dispute over the validity of the 1899 award…and that the dispute be settled by the International Court of Justice if that be the means selected by the SG,” he reminded.

Guyana urges ICJ to reject “illogical” Venezuela arguments on jurisdiction

Guyana v Venezuela border case

By: Jarryl Bryan

The hearing on jurisdiction in the ‘Guyana v Venezuela’ territorial case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began today with Guyana urging the court to reject Venezuela’s “meritless and illogical” arguments that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Making this call was international border dispute lawyer Paul Reichler, one of several lawyers on Guyana’s legal team. Reichler cited a number of documents which established that Venezuela itself agreed to terms in the 1966 Geneva agreement that allows the United Nations (UN) the sole jurisdiction to refer the case to the ICJ.

Venezuela’s Foreign Affairs Minister at that time was Ignacio Iribarren Borges.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister back in 1966, Ignacio Iribarren Borges, had communicated his country’s acceptance of the ICJ as a judicial arbiter in the border case.

Reichler presented to the court a statement Iribarren made to the National Congress on March 17, 1966, in which he proclaimed that “due to the Venezuelan objections accepted by Great Britain, there exists an unequivocal interpretation that the only person participating in the selection of the means of solution will be the Secretary General of the United Nations and not the assembly.”

Iribarren went on to say that “in compliance with article 4, if no satisfactory solution for Venezuela is reached, the award of 1899 should be revised through arbitration or a judicial recourse.”

Back then, the Foreign Minister even acknowledged that Venezuela’s agreement to the Geneva agreement was based on Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for both arbitration and recourse to the ICJ. In fact, it was a Venezuelan proposal during the discussions.

Only recently, Venezuela had communicated it’s intention to boycott today’s hearing. However, the Spanish speaking country had submitted a memorandum last year, in which it outlined it’s reasons for not recognising the ICJ’s role. Reichler used this memorandum in rejecting Venezuela’s contentions. According to him, Venezuela’s current flip flopped position is at odds with what it agreed to in 1966.

“The Foreign Minister left no doubt what Venezuela intended and that parties understood, by his insistence that judicial recourse be authorized under the 1966 agreement,” Reichler told the court, located in the Peace Palace of the Hague.

“There is no doubt, Mr. President, for either the terms of the agreement, the negotiating history or the contemporaneous statements by the parties immediately following its conclusion, that article 4.2 was intended to ensure there would be a final resolution of the controversy, that the Secretary General was empowered to decide on the means of the settlement to be employed and the parties understood and intended that if the secretary general so decided, the controversy would be settled by the ICJ. This was Venezuela’s understanding of the Geneva agreement.”

On Guyana’s legal team; International Lawyer Paul Reichler

Guyana is being represented at the ICJ by former Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge; and Sir Shridath Ramphal, who was Guyana’s Attorney General at the time the Geneva agreement was reached. Also part of the Guyana delegation is opposition representative Gail Texieira; former Foreign Affairs Minister Rashleigh Jackson; and former Director Generals of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Elizabeth Harper and Audrey Waddell.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: