Venezuela continues spurious claims to Essequibo

Nov 18, 2022 News

---

By Rehanna Ramsay

– contends that Guyana is not proper party to proceedings, wants UK added to case  

Kaieteur News – Venezuela continued its spurious claims to Guyana’s Essequibo regions when it presented submissions in the border controversy case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday. It argued that Guyana is not a proper party to the proceedings, but rather the United Kingdom which had negotiated the settlement of the then border dispute. As such, Venezuela wants the UK to be added to the proceedings if not then Guyana’s application for a full and final settlement of the border controversy to be dismissed.

The ICJ – the principal judicial organ of the UN, is holding public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Venezuela in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela). The hearings are slated to take place from 17 to 22 November 2022 at the Peace in The Hague, the seat of the ICJ. The sessions are being presided over by Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the Court. Guyana will present its case today as to why its case should be entertained by the ICJ.

NECESSARY PARTY

In a lengthy presentation before the panel of ICJ judges, Venezuela’s Vice President (VP) Delcy Rodriguez put forward the country’s position that ICJ does not have jurisdiction to hear Guyana’s application over the territorial controversy. She held that according to the convention, it was the United Kingdom (UK) and Venezuela that had reached initially an agreement concerning the border that separates the Essequibo Region from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. As such, the VP said that the UK is an indispensable and necessary party to the border controversy proceeding. Alluding to the agreement to resolve the controversy between the UK and Venezuela, VP Rodriguez said that Guyana cannot now claim locus standi to now defend or challenge that claim. “…There is a serious problem of admissibility,” Rodriguez said adding that the application before the ICJ has been filed by (Guyana) someone who did not participate in the “arbitrary fraud committed against Venezuela by the UK.”

Pointing to historical information dating back to when the Spanish crown ruled over the parts of the Region, Rodriguez said the United Kingdom never had a title over Guyana Essequibo province. She noted that throughout the 19^th century, the United Kingdom sought to lay hold over new territories in this part of the world by publishing maps with falsified borders which favoured the British Empire.

“This gave way for an organization to fraud, the aim of the United Kingdom was to steal the Venezuelan territory for their political and economic reasons…” the VP contended. Rodriguez held therefore that historically, there are two protagonists in the case, the colonist powers of the UK and Venezuela. She noted that at that time, Guyana did not exist. The Cooperative Republic of Guyana came into existence after the signing of the Geneva Agreement a fundamental part of the border controversy.  She said that both British and Venezuelan historians “have chronicled the fraud committed against Venezuela by the United Kingdom.” The information, the VP said was documented and filed in the history books of both countries. “The Court should not accept Guyana’s application on the grounds of inadmissibility since the UK as an indispensable party in the controversy is not participating in the case,” the VP said.  She noted the ICJ cannot make a proper determination in the border controversy case without the concurrence of the UK a main actor in the matter. “This is the basis of Venezuela’s objection to the unilateral application by Guyana before the ICJ,” Rodriguez added.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Professor Andreas Zimmermann, attorney-at-law, who also presented on behalf of Venezuela, spoke on what he described as two preliminary issues that cannot be ignored when examining the case filed before the International Court. These two issues are whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the case filed by Guyana was admissible.  While the court has already determined that it has jurisdiction to hear the border case, Guyana’s contention that the court should reject Venezuela’s claim to the inadmissibility of the case is misleading, the attorney said. “It seems that Guyana is attempting to blur the red lines on these two preliminary objections. It does so by consistently referring to the question of whether the court has jurisdiction or not…” He claimed that though the court has jurisdiction, it does not mean it can exercise it.

Prof. Zimmermann noted therefore that the main contention raised by Venezuela over the United Kingdom not being a party to the proceeding hinges on the issue of admissibility rather than jurisdiction.  He stressed that the Court had only determined the issue of jurisdiction but it must now determine whether the application presented by Guyana is admissible. The lawyer said it is essential for the UK- a necessary third party to the matter must participate in the case for the matter to be deemed admissible.

ARBITRARY FRAUD

In a follow-up presentation, Professor Carlos Esposito, who also represented Venezuela in the matter, contended that the court should not move forward with the case, given that the UK was never added as a third party to respond to the claims of fraud raised by Venezuela. He claimed that this would result in essentially a grave miscarriage of justice. “Venezuela contends that there have been several instances of fraudulent conducts by lawyers and high-ranking parties of the United Kingdom, which affect the lawful of the arbitrary award which the Court would need to examine if it were to arrive at a correct decision to a proper conclusion…”

He emphasised therefore that the court cannot decide the case in the absence of Great Britain a necessary party that negotiated the arbitral award. The lawyer stressed too that while Guyana argues that the award of 1989 is valid and should be maintained, it is Venezuela’s contention that “the fraudulent and coercive conduct that preceded the agreement renders it null and void.”

Esposito said that “for the Court to decide on the merits of the case, it will have to touch on the issue which forms a necessary part of the case—making the United Kingdom–an indispensable party and Guyana’s case—inadmissible.” The lawyer noted too that should the ICJ hear the merits of the case, it will be making a serious decision based on “tainted and adulterated maps that were drawn by the UK.”

Esposito noted that the court must rule on the UK’s conduct if it were to properly determine the merits of the case. He said nonetheless that this should not be done in the absence of the UK. The hearings scheduled to end on Tuesday related to an application Guyana brought to the Court on 29 March 2018.

The Court confirmed its jurisdiction over the case, rejecting Venezuela’s objections, in a Judgment issued on 18 December 2020. On 8 March 2022, Guyana filed its Memorial on the merits of its case against Venezuela in accordance with the Order of 8 March 2021 of the Court. Venezuela subsequently filed preliminary objections to the admissibility of Guyana’s Application to the Court to determine the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award on 7 June 2022.  In accordance with its rules, the Court suspended the proceedings on the merits until the determination of the Court of the matter of Venezuela’s preliminary objections.

---

---