GUYANA, VENEZUELA AND THE ICJ

Feb 11, 2018 Editorial

At long last, the government and people of Guyana can now see the light at the end of the tunnel with the announcement by the United Nations (UN) Secretary General, Antonio Gutterres, that the Guyana/Venezuela controversy will be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the World Court.
It is a positive development for the Guyana Government to conclusively rebuff the illegitimate territorial claim by Venezuela. The UN General Secretary’s decision was made after the Norwegian ambassador, Dagg Halvor Nylander, failed to resolve the border controversy through the Good Offices process in 2017. By choosing the ICJ to resolve the border controversy, Gutterres has fulfilled his responsibility within the framework set by his predecessor in December 2016.
Guyana has always held the view that the ICJ is the appropriate forum for the peaceful and definitive settlement of the controversy. It is pleased that its view has prevailed under the process.
Guyana has welcomed the decision, but Venezuela which is in the throes of an economic and political meltdown has rejected it; insisting that it preferred a political solution which is in keeping with its interpretation of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
The border controversy started during the second half of the 19^th century between Venezuela and Great Britain over the location of the border between its colony of British Guiana and Venezuela. It was settled by the Arbitral Tribunal which was empaneled in 1897 to determine the borders on October 3, 1899. Subsequently, a Joint Commission with representatives from both countries delineated the borders in 1905 which Venezuela honored in word and deed. A concrete barrier was erected a year later after it was confirmed by then Venezuela’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Esteban Gil Borges in 1941 that the frontier with British Guiana was well defined and was a closed issue.
However, the controversy resurfaced after a letter by Mallet Prevost, a Venezuelan lawyer, revealed that collusion between the Russian and British judges had taken place during the inquiry. Guyana has stood firm against Venezuela’s attempt to re-open the border controversy which was settled a half century before its independence, but Venezuela is forcefully and unilaterally renewing its claim that the 1899 Tribunal which settled the borders was null and void.
In the days following the Award, on October 7, 1899, Venezuela’s Ambassador to Britain, Jose Andrade, the brother of the then Venezuelan President, claimed “We were given the exclusive dominion over the Orinoco, which was the principle aim we sought to achieve through arbitration.”
Venezuelan now has expansionist desires.
Guyana’s reliance on the rule of international law to settle the controversy has been the under-pinning of its national sovereignty. In February 1966, then British Guyana, Britain and Venezuela met in Geneva, Switzerland and signed the Geneva Agreement to settle the controversy peacefully. It should be made clear that the Geneva Agreement does not state or imply that there is a territorial controversy between the countries or that the border between the two countries is unsettled. What it recognizes and seeks to resolve is Venezuela’s contention that the Tribunal Award of 1899 is null and void.
Venezuela realized that it had a weak case and has rejected a legal settlement by the ICJ. However, the discovery of oil in the Essequibo region by ExxonMobil has caused Venezuela to issue two decrees–in May 2015 and in July 2015– illegally claiming almost all of Guyana’s maritime zone. Guyana has rejected both decrees as flagrant violation of the principle that all states should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News