CJ retires for deliberation in Guyana’s case against Venezuela.
Sir Shridath Ramphal, who is part of the high-level legal team presenting Guyana’s cases before the ICJ. The court is deciding whether it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case brought before it to put an end to the border controversy.
DPI, Guyana, Tuesday, June 30, 2020
Guyana has presented its arguments that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction to hear its border dispute case against Venezuela.
Those arguments were put forward on Tuesday by a team of international lawyers led by Sir Shridath Ramphal, Guyana’s Co-Agent in the matter against Venezuela.
Guyana argued that the court’s jurisdiction is derived from two sources in combination.
“First, the agreement to resolve the controversy over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana signed at Geneva on 17 February 1966 and second, the decision of the Secretary-General of the UN pursuant to Article 4(2) of that agreement that the controversy shall be resolved by the International Court of Justice, ”stated Attorney-at-Law, Paul Reichler who presented on behalf of Guyana.
Altogether four presenters targeted different aspects – the Parris Accord, Geneva Agreement; the UN Secretary-General’s arrival at identifying the ICJ to hear the dispute and the general arrival to the dispute.
Further, in its argument, Guyana contended that the Geneva agreement is quite clear when it outlined that the Secretary-General’s decision on the matter of settlement was final.
“Article 4 (2) states expressly that if the parties are unable to agree on the means of settlement or on an appropriate international organ to choose the means of settlement “they shall refer the decision on the means of settlement to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. This makes clear that the Secretary-General was conferred with the power to make a decision on the means of settlement.” Reichler added.
In his opening presentation, Sir Shridath Ramphal, Guyana’s Co-Agent in the matter, maintained that a juridical settlement of this matter is the only recourse remaining as Guyana has exhausted all other measures.
Guyana’s case is based in the plain text of the Geneva Agreement.
“A hundred and twenty years have passed since international law spoke, during that time colonization in British Guiana came to an end and Guyana has now enjoyed more than 50 years of Independence.” Sir Shridath Ramphal stated with regards to how long the matter has been ongoing.
As the case adjourned for deliberation, ICJ President, Abdulqawi Yusuf said an announcement will be made with regards to the date of judgement.
Source: https://dpi.gov.gy/icj-retires-for-deliberation-in-guyanas-case-against-venezuela/#gsc.tab=0
Guyana urges ICJ to reject “illogical” Venezuela arguments on jurisdiction
Guyana v Venezuela border case
By: Jarryl Bryan
The hearing on jurisdiction in the ‘Guyana v Venezuela’ territorial case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) began today with Guyana urging the court to reject Venezuela’s “meritless and illogical” arguments that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Making this call was international border dispute lawyer Paul Reichler, one of several lawyers on Guyana’s legal team. Reichler cited a number of documents which established that Venezuela itself agreed to terms in the 1966 Geneva agreement that allows the United Nations (UN) the sole jurisdiction to refer the case to the ICJ.
Venezuela’s Foreign Affairs Minister at that time was Ignacio Iribarren Borges.
Reichler presented to the court a statement Iribarren made to the National Congress on March 17, 1966, in which he proclaimed that “due to the Venezuelan objections accepted by Great Britain, there exists an unequivocal interpretation that the only person participating in the selection of the means of solution will be the Secretary General of the United Nations and not the assembly.”
Iribarren went on to say that “in compliance with article 4, if no satisfactory solution for Venezuela is reached, the award of 1899 should be revised through arbitration or a judicial recourse.”
Back then, the Foreign Minister even acknowledged that Venezuela’s agreement to the Geneva agreement was based on Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for both arbitration and recourse to the ICJ. In fact, it was a Venezuelan proposal during the discussions.
Only recently, Venezuela had communicated it’s intention to boycott today’s hearing. However, the Spanish speaking country had submitted a memorandum last year, in which it outlined it’s reasons for not recognising the ICJ’s role. Reichler used this memorandum in rejecting Venezuela’s contentions. According to him, Venezuela’s current flip flopped position is at odds with what it agreed to in 1966.
“The Foreign Minister left no doubt what Venezuela intended and that parties understood, by his insistence that judicial recourse be authorized under the 1966 agreement,” Reichler told the court, located in the Peace Palace of the Hague.
“There is no doubt, Mr. President, for either the terms of the agreement, the negotiating history or the contemporaneous statements by the parties immediately following its conclusion, that article 4.2 was intended to ensure there would be a final resolution of the controversy, that the Secretary General was empowered to decide on the means of the settlement to be employed and the parties understood and intended that if the secretary general so decided, the controversy would be settled by the ICJ. This was Venezuela’s understanding of the Geneva agreement.”
Guyana is being represented at the ICJ by former Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge; and Sir Shridath Ramphal, who was Guyana’s Attorney General at the time the Geneva agreement was reached. Also part of the Guyana delegation is opposition representative Gail Texieira; former Foreign Affairs Minister Rashleigh Jackson; and former Director Generals of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Elizabeth Harper and Audrey Waddell.
Venezuela says will not participate in ICJ hearing on border dispute
With little over a week to go before Guyana begins defending its border case against Venezuela’s illegal claims on Essequibo, the Spanish-speaking country has indicated that it will not be attending the June 30 International Court of Justice (ICJ) hearing on jurisdiction.
This was revealed by Venezuela’s Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Arreaza, who shared a Venezuelan communique on his official social media account. In announcing this decision, the Minister explained why they would not be attending the meeting.
“Venezuela informs that, in accordance with its historical position and in strict adherence to the 1966 Geneva Agreement, it will not attend the unusual and irregular hearing called for June 30 by the International Court of Justice,” Arreaza said.
The February 17, 1966 Agreement gave the United Nations (UN) Secretary General the responsibility to choose a means of peaceful resolution of the dispute and the possibility of finding another way in case it does not succeed.
Venezuela has said in the past that it does not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ to mediate the matter and had unjustly claimed that UN Secretary General António Guterres exceeded his authority under the Geneva Agreement by referring the case there.
Guyana filed its case with the World Court on March 29, 2018, seeking a final and binding judgement that the 1899 Arbitral Award which established the location of the land boundary between the then-British Guiana and Venezuela remains valid and binding, and that Guyana’s Essequibo region belongs to Guyana, and not Venezuela as is being claimed by the Spanish-speaking country.
The case was originally scheduled to be heard on March 23, 2020. However, the ICJ had postponed the long-anticipated hearing of the Guyana-Venezuela border dispute case, citing the worldwide crisis of the coronavirus.
In a previous notice, the Hague, Netherlands-based ICJ had informed the parties of the schedules for the upcoming public hearings to determine whether the court has jurisdiction to preside over the matter.
The first round of oral arguments was supposed to be held on the first day, with Guyana presenting its pleadings. The following day would have been awarded to Venezuela. With Venezuela confirming its non-attendance, it’s unclear what will happen to this second day.
At present, however, both Guyana and Venezuela are in the throes of domestic troubles of their own. In the case of Venezuela, its economy has collapsed under the Nicholas Maduro regime and sanctions imposed by the United States over Maduro’s undemocratic grip on power based on elections widely panned as lacking credibility.
The Venezuelan President has even been charged in the US for narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and corruption. Meanwhile, Guyana is without an official declaration by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), three months after elections were held.
The past few months have been marked by court cases and attempts by certain officials to rig the elections in the favour of the APNU/AFC.
Officials in the US and other countries have already warned that Guyana could be sanctioned and isolated on the world stage if the legitimate results are not used to swear in a President, a situation that analysts have said could impact Guyana’s case at the ICJ.
The border controversy gained new life when oil giant ExxonMobil announced in 2015 that it had found oil offshore Guyana. Venezuela had inexplicably been against oil exploration in Guyana’s Stabroek Block, where multiple oil deposits were found by ExxonMobil, and had laid claim to the Essequibo region, which represents two-thirds of Guyana’s territory.
After some two years of mediation, the UN announced back in 2018 that it had sent the matter to the ICJ after careful analysis of the good offices process.
Source: https://www.inewsguyana.com/venezuela-says-will-not-participate-in-icj-hearing-on-border-dispute/