Guyana welcomes ruling of ICJ on border dispute with Venezuela

Guyana on Thursday welcomed the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the ongoing border dispute with Venezuela with both the government and the opposition saying they remain confident that the Hague-based court will confirm the country’s longstanding international boundary dispute with its South American neighbour. 

The ICJ by a vote of 14 to one rejected the preliminary objection by Venezuela to Guyana’s application for the upholding of the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award settling the boundaries between the two countries. 

The decision read by Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the Court, means that the court can now proceed to address the substantive application by Georgetown regarding the validity of the award. 

The ICJ rejected Venezuela’s argument that the United Kingdom as Guyana’s colonial power should have been a party to the proceedings. 

“The court concludes that the Geneva agreement specifies particular roles for Guyana and Venezuela, and that its provisions including Article eight, do not provide a role for the United Kingdom in choosing or in participating in the means of settlement of the dispute. pursuant to Article four,” the ICJ ruled. 

“The Court concludes that, by virtue of being a party to the Geneva Agreement, the United Kingdom accepted that the dispute between Guyana and Venezuela could be settled by one of the means set out in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, and that it would have no role in that procedure. Under these circumstances, the Court considers that the Monetary Gold principle does not come into play in this case. 

“It follows that even if the Court, in its judgment on the merits, were called to pronounce on certain conduct attributable to the United Kingdom, which cannot be determined at present, this would not preclude the Court from exercising its jurisdiction, which is based on the application of the Geneva Agreement. The preliminary objection raised by Venezuela must therefore be rejected,” it added. 

Last November, Venezuela said the ICJ could not hear the case and that the 1899 Arbitral Award is a full, final and perfect settlement of the land boundary between the two countries because Britain is not a party to the proceedings. 

“We submit that this court would not be in a position to resolve Guyana’s application because the United Kingdom, an indispensable party to settle such a matter of the dispute requested by Guyana is not participating,” she told the judges. 

In a statement, President Dr Irfaan Ali said the ruling by the ICJ means that it will “now 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”. 

He said Venezuela and the United Kingdom recognised the validity of that Arbitral Award and the resulting international boundary for more than 60 years. 

“Upon its independence in 1966, Guyana also recognised the Award and the boundary, but Venezuela had changed its position and begun claiming more than two-thirds of Guyana’s territory west of the Essequibo River. 

Ali said that this is the second time the International Court has rejected jurisdictional objections raised by Venezuela, noting that it had done so in 2020 and 2022. 

“Today’s ruling disposes of that objection, and will require Venezuela to submit its written pleadings on the merits of the case – that is, on the validity of the Arbitral Award and the international boundary that it established,” he said, adding “Guyana remains confident that its longstanding international boundary with Venezuela will be confirmed by the Court. 

“Guyana has always been fully committed to the peaceful resolution of the dispute with its neighbour and sister Republic in accordance with international law. That is why, after attempting unsuccessfully to achieve a diplomatic settlement through talks mediated by the United Nations Secretary-General over more than two decades, Guyana brought the matter to the International Court of Justice for a final and binding determination. 

“All Member States of the United Nations, including Guyana and Venezuela, are obligated under the United Nations Charter to comply with the Court’s binding judgments,” Ali added. 

Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton told a news conference of the efforts made by the former government to ensure that Guyana’s borders were not taken over by Venezuela. 

“We are unanimous in our view that Essequibo belongs to the people of Guyana, we are unanimous in our views that the Court (ICJ) has jurisdiction and we will continue to support the government and people of Guyana on this very critical issue,” he told reporters. 

In a statement issued, opposition legislator and spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Amanza Walton- Desir, said the coalition A Partnership for National Unity and the Alliance For Cange (APNU+AFC) welcomed the ruling, adding “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”. 

In its ruling, the ICJ said that based on the Articles of the Geneva Convention of February 17, 1966, it was clear that the two parties to the settlement of the controversy over the arbitral award were British Guiana and Venezuela. 

It also rejected an argument by Caracas that the principle of Monetary Gold where a third party is absent from the proceedings bans the tribunal from acting does not apply. Therefore the then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon was able to operate under Article 33 of the UN Charter to refer the controversy to the ICJ as requested by Guyana. 

In March 2018, Guyana filed its application with the ICJ 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, following the decision by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to choose the ICJ as the next means of resolving the controversy which stems from Venezuela’s contention that the award was null and void. 
In its application of March 29, 2018, Guyana requested that the Court adjudge and declare that the “1899 Award is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela, and the boundary established by that Award and the 1905 Agreement is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela”. 

It also wanted the ICJ to 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”. 

In addition, Georgetown wanted Venezuela to “immediately withdraw from and cease its occupation of the eastern half of the Island of Ankoko, and each and every other territory which is recognised as Guyana’s sovereign territory in accordance with the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement; 

“Venezuela shall refrain from threatening or using force against any person and/or company licensed by Guyana or engage in economic or commercial activity in Guyanese territory as determined by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, or in any maritime areas appurtenant to such territory over which Guyana has sovereignty or exercises sovereign rights, and shall not interfere with any Guyanese or Guyanese-authorised activities in those areas; 

“Venezuela is internationally responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights, and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.” 

The decision to go to the ICJ by Guyana came after years of stalemate with Venezuela first indicating that it would not be participating in the process and that its participation would be “as a courtesy, not as a party in this procedure.” 

However, on June 7 last year, Caracas joined the proceedings when it raised preliminary objections to the admissibility of the case before the Court.