Guyana welcomes ruling of ICJ on border dispute with Venezuela
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision in the ongoing border dispute with Venezuela was welcomed by Guyana on Thursday. Both the government and the opposition expressed their continued confidence that the Hague-based court would uphold the nation’s long-standing international boundary dispute with its South American neighbor.
By a vote of 14 to 1, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected Venezuela’s preliminary challenge to Guyana’s request to defend the legality of the 1899 Arbitral Decision determining the two nations’ border disputes.
The court can now move forward and address the substantive application by Georgetown regarding the legitimacy of the award according to the ruling that Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the Court, has read.
The United Kingdom’s claim that it should have participated in the proceedings as Guyana’s colonial authority was rejected by the ICJ.
The court comes to the conclusion that the Geneva accord provides specific tasks for Guyana and Venezuela and that its provisions, including Article 8, do not give the United Kingdom a role in selecting or taking part in the procedures of resolving the dispute. according to Article 4,” the ICJ decided.
“The Court finds that the United Kingdom acknowledged that the dispute between Guyana and Venezuela may be resolved by one of the mechanisms specified in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter and that it would have no role in that procedure by virtue of being a party to the Geneva Agreement. Given these facts, the Court believes that the Monetary Gold principle is not applicable in this situation.
It follows that the Court would still be allowed to exercise its jurisdiction, which is based on the application of the Geneva Convention, even if it were asked to rule on some behavior that can’t now be determined to be attributable to the United Kingdom in its judgment on the merits. Venezuela’s initial complaint must be dismissed as a result, it continued.
Venezuela claimed in November of last year that because Britain was not a party to the proceedings, the ICJ could not hear the case and that the 1899 Arbitral Decision was a complete, final, and ideal resolution of the dispute over the countries’ shared border.
She told the judges, “We suggest that this court would not be in a position to determine Guyana’s application since the United Kingdom is not participating, an indispensable party to settle such a subject of the dispute claimed by Guyana.
President Dr. Irfaan Ali issued a statement in which he said that the ICJ’s decision means that it will “proceed to decide the (controversy) between the two States on the merits, and ultimately issue a final and binding determination on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that fixed the land boundary between Venezuela and then-British Guiana.”
For more than 60 years, he claimed, Venezuela and the United Kingdom recognized the legitimacy of that arbitral award and the consequent international boundary.
“After Guyana gained its independence in 1966, it officially formally recognized the Award and the line, but Venezuela had since altered its mind and started laying claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s land west of the Essequibo River.
According to Ali, the International Court has already rejected Venezuela’s jurisdictional claims twice; the first time was in 2020 and the second time was in 2022.
“Today’s decision disposes of that objection, and will necessitate Venezuela’s submission of its written pleadings on the merits of the case, that is, on the legality of the Arbitral Award and the international boundary that it established,” he said, adding that “Guyana remains confident that the Court will uphold its long-standing international boundary with Venezuela.
The peaceful settlement of the conflict with its neighbor and sister Republic in conformity with international law has always been a priority for Guyana. Because of this, Guyana brought the case to the International Court of Justice for a definitive and binding decision after trying in vain to reach a diplomatic settlement through talks mediated by the United Nations Secretary-General for more than two decades.
According to the United Nations Charter, “all Member States of the United Nations, including Guyana and Venezuela, are required to comply with the Court’s binding judgements,” Ali continued.
Aubrey Norton, the leader of the opposition, spoke during a press conference about the measures made by the previous administration to prevent Venezuela from encroaching on Guyana’s boundaries.
He told reporters, “We will continue to support the government and people of Guyana on this very vital subject. We are unanimous in our views that Essequibo belongs to the people of Guyana and that the Court (ICJ) has jurisdiction.
“With the Court’s rejection of Venezuela’s preliminary objections, the way has now been cleared for the ICJ to adjudicate on the merits of the case, in pursuit of a final and binding judgment on the matter,” opposition legislator and spokesperson on foreign affairs Amanza Walton- Desir said in a statement.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that British Guiana and Venezuela were the two parties to the settlement of the dispute over the arbitral judgment based on the provisions of the Geneva Convention of February 17, 1966.
Court also dismissed Caracas’s claim that the Monetary Gold principle, which prohibits the tribunal from intervening when a third party is not present at the hearings, does not apply. As a result, Ban Ki-Moon, the then-UN Secretary-General, was able to act in accordance with Article 33 of the UN Charter and send the dispute to the ICJ at Guyana’s request.
Following Antonio Guterres’ decision to select the ICJ as the next step in resolving the dispute stemming from Venezuela’s claim that the award was null and void, Guyana filed its application with the ICJ in March 2018 to confirm the validity and binding effect of the Arbitral Award of 1899 on the boundary between the two countries and the subsequent 1905 agreement.
Guyana asked the court to rule and declare that the 1899 Award is legitimate and binding on both Guyana and Venezuela, as well as that the boundary set by that Award and the 1905 Accord is legal and binding on both Guyana and Venezuela, in its application from March 29, 2018.
In addition, it requested that the International Court of Justice rule that “Guyana enjoys full sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River and the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement, and Venezuela enjoys full sovereignty over the territory west of that boundary; Guyana and Venezuela are under an obligation to fully respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement.”
Georgetown further demanded that Venezuela “immediately withdraw from and stop its occupation of the eastern half of the Island of Ankoko, and each and every other territory which is recognized as Guyana’s sovereign territory in accordance with the 1899 Award and 1905 Accord;
“Venezuela shall not threaten, use force against, or engage in any economic or commercial activity in Guyanese territory as defined by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, or in any maritime areas adjacent to such territory over which Guyana has sovereignty or exercised sovereign rights, and shall not interfere with any Guyanese or Guyanese-authorized activities in those areas;”
Venezuela is held accountable on a global scale for all harm done to Guyana as a result of infringement of its sovereignty and sovereign rights.
After years of impasse, Guyana decided to appeal to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), despite Venezuela’s initial declaration that it would not be taking part and that its participation would only be “as a courtesy, not as a participant in this procedure.”
Caracas, however, joined the proceedings on June 7 of last year after making initial objections to the case’s admissibility before the Court.
