Latest update April 16th, 2025 7:21 AM
Latest News
- Oil production in Guyana to climb to 900K barrels per day… as 4th FPSO arrives
- Italian company secures contract for early works on Exxon’s 7th project yet to be approved
- Israel proposes Gaza ceasefire deal to release 10 hostages for hundreds of Palestinians, Hamas says
- Peru’s ex-president and first lady sentenced to 15 years in jail
- Brazil to auction 172 oil blocks in June
ICJ delivered careful judgment on Guyana, Venezuela border case – Int’l lawyers
Guyanese diplomat, Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan
Kaieteur News – International lawyers who represented Guyana at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week, have fired back at criticism from Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan, a Guyanese and former United Nations (UN) official, who reportedly said that the decision by the UN-supported World Court, to entertain the border case was reckless.
In a missive issued yesterday, attorneys Paul Reichler and Professor Philippe Sands, QC lauded last week’s careful court judgment by the ICJ.
The lawyers said in response to a letter by Dr. Ramcharan, which was carried in the Stabroek News that they do not understand “…Quite how that approach may be said to be “reckless” is unclear, and it may be that on carefully re-reading it, Dr. Ramcharan will come to a clearer understanding of what it has actually said.”
Professor Philippe Sands, QC
International Arbitrator, Paul Reichler
In the piece, Dr. Ramcharan was highly critical of the decision by the ICJ’s ruling that it has jurisdiction to hear the validity of the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela.
According to Ramcharan, on a closer look, there are perplexing features of the decision that warrant serious scrutiny.
“With great respect,” he said, “the decision of the Court is a reckless one.”
The first issue is how the Court framed the issue that must now be addressed in the final stage of the case, the Guyanese diplomat added.
In reply to the critique, attorneys Reichler and Sands, QC, who were on the team that defended Guyana in the border case, noted their considerable surprise at the article written by Dr. Ramcharan.
“This is all the more so,” the lawyers added, “having known Dr. Ramcharan for many years. He has expertise and experience in many areas, but the practise of the International Court of Justice is not, as far as we are aware, one of them.”
The attorneys explained that the Court was faced with a novel situation, in which its jurisdiction was premised on a decision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Both Reichler and Sands noted that the Court has ruled, by a large majority, that “it has jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Co-operative Republic of Guyana on March 29, 2018, in so far as it concerns the validity of the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”
They said that the ruling follows the careful and considered approach of the Court, as reflected in its practise.
“The Court has expressed no view on whether there is or is not a land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela. Rather, it has decided to exercise jurisdiction on the question of whether such a dispute has been subject to a “definitive settlement,” a question that turns on the validity of the Arbitral Award of 1899,” the lawyers added in the statement.
As such, the attorneys stressed that given the careful judgment “quite how that approach may be said to be “reckless” is unclear, and it may be that on carefully re-reading it, Dr. Ramcharan will come to a clearer understanding of what it has actually said.”
Further, the lawyers emphasized that having between themselves practised before the Court for more than six decades, in their view the judgment appears to be reasonable in its approach, and one that is entirely favourable to Guyana.
The attorneys said that it was an honour to represent Guyana to argue the jurisdictional issues on its behalf under the leadership of Carl Greenidge and Sir Shridath Ramphal, and accompanied by a team of distinguished international lawyers.
As a result, they held that the Court’s decision of December 18, 2020, is a historic victory for Guyana.
“It gives Guyana exactly what it has been seeking since independence in 1966, an opportunity to obtain a final and binding judgment from the world’s highest court on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, and the boundary that was fixed in accordance with it, and to confirm Guyana’s exclusive and undisputed sovereignty over the entire Essequibo Region,” the two attorneys said in the statement.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
In praise of the Almighty Executive Order
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Democracy, as we know it, is a kind of ménage à trois — the elected, the appointed,... more
Collaborative Government–Private Sector Action Imperative for a Resilient Trade Future
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- On April 9, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 90-day suspension of the higher... more
Weekend Cartoon
