ONCE THERE IS A JURIDICAL SETTLEMENT, THE GENEVA AGREEMENT WILL HAVE TO BE REINTERPRETED

Oct 28, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Is the government of Guyana backpedaling from its position that Guyana considers its borders with Venezuela settled? This is something that the government of Guyana has insisted; it has said that the 1899 award is valid and binding.
If the 1899 award is valid and binding, why then is Guyana indicating that it would be open to an advisory opinion on the validity of the 1899 award? Is this not a retreat from its original position that as far as Guyana is concerned the 1899 award settled the border between Guyana and Venezuela?
Guyana keeps harping that it will like a juridical settlement. This is one of the options open to the Secretary General of the United Nations. The matter is now with him and he can choose one of a series of measures, including juridical settlement. It is for him to decide but as it is with these types of decisions, they are not done without the support of the contesting parties. The Secretary General is therefore not likely to agree to anything unless he has the consent of both parties.
The government of Guyana can therefore scream all it wants about juridical settlement but in the final analysis if Venezuela does not agree, this option is dead. Without Venezuela’s, consent there can be no juridical settlement because the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requires that both parties agree to approach the Court except where there is a treaty or some agreement between the parties to have the ICJ deal with the matter.
The Geneva Agreement does not allow either party to the controversy to take the matter to the ICJ and therefore unless Venezuela agrees- and it is not likely to agree, then the matter cannot be heard by the ICJ.
The United Nations of itself cannot ask the ICJ to adjudicate the dispute between Guyana and Venezuela. But in accordance with the statutes of the International Criminal Court, the United Nations can ask for an advisory opinion on the controversy.
This seems to be the direction in which Guyana is heading. Instead of insisting on a juridical settlement, Guyana now seems to be suggesting that it may opt for legal advice from the ICJ.
But legal advice on what? According to reports, advice can be sought on the legality of the 1899 award.
Well why would Guyana wish to have legal advice on the validity of the 1899 award? The government’s position has always been that the borders with Venezuela were settled by the 1899 award. So why this doublespeak about a legal opinion?
Guyana has found itself in a problem. It has found itself in this problem because it has not paid keen attention to strategy over this issue. It has been reacting to Venezuela and overreacting too.
There was no need for the overreaction. Guyana had an obligation to oppose the decrees that were issued by Venezuela but it also had an obligation to dialogue with Venezuela. Guyana must not find excuses as to why it did not dialogue. It must explain to the Guyanese people why it did not given the economic interests that were at stake including Guyanaa’s largest ever rice market.
A juridical option could involve a legal opinion and this is something that the Secretary General can propose. But why will Guyana agree to this? The Geneva Agreement signed by Forbes Burnham will come under scrutiny under any process asking for a legal opinion.
Burnham never asked for any juridical settlement of legal opinion because he knew what he did via the Geneva Agreement. But he has managed for almost fifty years to have the Guyanese people believe that the agreement should only be concerned with the controversy that has arisen in relation to Venezuela’s contention that the 1899 award is invalid and not with the validity of the 1899 award itself. It now seems as if Guyana is opening to challenge whether indeed the 1899 award is valid.
Either way Guyana is in a bind. If my neighbour and I have a problem about whether the fence between our properties is rightly placed and if this difference results in a controversy between me and my neighbor, how can this controversy be resolved without considering where the fence should rightly be resolved.
Burnham’s mishandling of the Geneva Agreement may yet come back to haunt Guyana for all eternity.

Latest News

ONCE THERE IS A JURIDICAL SETTLEMENT, THE GENEVA AGREEMENT WILL HAVE TO BE REINTERPRETED

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 20th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

COME MAKE YOUR CASE: CWI president Shallow urges BCA, GCB to use...

CANOC President calls for Caribbean boxing...

New West Cricket Club of Canada to tour Guyana...

Chung cops Gold as National Indoor Recurve...

Guyana Junior hockey teams to contest PAHF Jr...

Play in the BCB/Dr Amarnauth Dukhi U15 One-Day...

Features/Columnists

Gimme de ting wah the doctor order me!

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Budget blowup, breeziness

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

ONCE THERE IS A JURIDICAL SETTLEMENT, THE GENEVA AGREEMENT WILL HAVE TO BE REINTERPRETED

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 20th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]