World Court rules it has jurisdiction to hear Guyana - Venezuela border case

World Court rules it has jurisdiction to hear Guyana – Venezuela border case

Dec 19, 2020 News

By Rehanna Ramsay

The Peace Palace, which houses the World Court in Hague, Netherlands.

Kaieteur News – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) – otherwise known as the World Court – yesterday ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the Guyana-Venezuela border case.
The 12-3 decision of the 15 member bench of the International Court, which live-streamed via the Court‘s website yesterday, was viewed by a contingent of local dignitaries including President Irfaan Ali; members of his Cabinet; former Speaker of the National Assembly, Barton Scotland; former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Greenidge; and other officials who converged at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre (ACCC) to hear the delivery of the judgment.
Delivering the ruling from the Court’s seat at the Peace Palace in Hague, Netherlands, President of the ICJ, Justice Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, noted that the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case is founded upon the conferral of both countries in the authority of the UN Secretary-General under Article Four, Paragraph Two of the February 17, 1966 Geneva Agreement.

President of the ICJ, Justice Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf.

That agreement was brokered by then UN Secretary General U Thant.
The ICJ President said that the agreement allowed the Secretary-General to choose a means of settlement under Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, which included judicial settlement.
In the circumstances, the ICJ found that the questions of the validity of the 1899 Award and of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.
While examining the legal effect of the decision of the Secretary-General on its jurisdiction under its statute, President Yusuf noted that “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.”
The Court, he said recalls that Venezuela has argued that the Geneva Agreement is not sufficient in itself to found the jurisdiction of the Court and the subsequent consent of the parties for the Secretary-General to choose the means of judicial settlement.
“…[But] the Court concluded that, by conferring on the Secretary-General the authority to choose the appropriate means of settlement of their controversy, including the possibility of recourse to judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice, Guyana and Venezuela consented to its jurisdiction.”
It was nonetheless noted that the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to entertain Guyana’s claims arising from events that occurred after the signature of the Geneva Agreement.
In this regard, Justice Yusuf said that Guyana had contended that the Court’s jurisdiction extends to all the claims submitted in its application, on the grounds that the Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the text of the Geneva Agreement.
Further, in giving an overview on the contentions, Justice Yusuf noted Guyana’s argument is that since the 1899 Award delimited the boundary between Venezuela and the colony of British Guiana, the controversy between the parties is territorial and the Court must therefore necessarily determine the boundary between Venezuela and Guyana, which implies first deciding whether the Award is valid.
He said that “Guyana further argues that the Court would not be in a position to reach ‘a full agreement for the solution’ of this dispute by addressing “any outstanding questions,” which is the objective set forth under Article IV of the Geneva Agreement, without first ruling on the validity of the Award.”
On the other hand, the World Court President noted that in its memo, Venezuela alleges that the question of the validity of the 1899 Award is not part of the controversy under the Geneva Agreement.
“According to Venezuela,” he said “the Geneva Agreement was adopted on the basis that the merits of the contention of nullity of the Award could not be discussed between the parties as the “validity or nullity of an arbitral award is non-negotiable.”
The judge said that Venezuela considers that “the subject-matter of the Geneva Agreement is the territorial dispute, not the validity or nullity of the 1899 A

ward.”
He noted further that Venezuela adds that a legal dispute such as one regarding the validity of the 1899 Award is not susceptible to a “practical” settlement.
The Guyana- Venezuela border issue stems from a quarrel that dates back to 1787. The two countries had made an arbitral award establishing the boundary between them in 1899 but their latest quarrel came after a 2015 Presidential decree from President Nicolas Maduro saw Venezuela claiming Essequibo and its offshore territory. The claims resulted in Venezuela’s naval invasion into the area on numerous occasions to stop any exploration from taking place in those quarters.
The claims were met with protests from Guyana, the dispute that now lies in the hands of the ICJ, the international court established by the United Nations Charter for a resolving such issues.
A refusal by Venezuela, in March of this year, to participate in the matter on the grounds that the ICJ lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the border complaint meant that the Court had to determine the preliminary issue of jurisdiction before it could hear and determine the merits of the territorial case in accordance with international law.
Moments after the ruling, Venezuela’s Foreign Minister, Jorge Arreaza, issued a statement to the press published by Unionnewsnet, in which he stated that the national government rejected the decision of the ICJ, as it does not view the Court as competent to handle the matter.