Border controversy: $2.6B spent on Guyana’s case between 2015-2023

Some $2.6 billion has been expended by the state in direct costs to debunk Venezuela’s claims to Guyana’s territory during the period 2015 to March 2023.
This information was provided to the National Assembly on Thursday in response to a question raised last month by Opposition Member of Parliament Volda Lawrence to Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Minister Hugh Todd.
The MP was seeking figures on how much money has been spent as payments to lawyers and other personnel, on research and documentation, on travel and subsistence, and on other related expenses for the period 2015 to March 2023:
A breakdown of the costs showed the following expenditures: $53.2 million spent in 2015; $119.7 million spent in 2016; $276.1 million spent in 2017; $412.4 million spent in 2018; $309.7 million spent in 2019; $502.7 million spent in 2020; $314 million spent in 2021; $576.8 million spent in 2022, and $37.9 million spent as at March 2023.
These sums were expended under two Governments, the former A Partnership For National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) administration and the current People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration.
Guyana’s legal team is being headed by Co-Agent and Counsel Sir Shridath Ramphal, and includes member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia, Paul S Reichler; Professor Emeritus of the University Paris Nanterre, former Chairman of the International Law Commission and member of the Institut de Droit International, Alain Pellet; Professor of International Law at University College, London, Philippe Sands; Professor of International Law and Senior Fellow at Massey College, University of Toronto, and member of the Bar of New York, the Law Society of Ontario and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Payam Akhavan.
Representation is also provided by Professor Ordinaire, Université Catholique de Louvain and member of the Institut de Droit International, Foley Hoag, LLP and the Bar of Brussels, Pierre d’Argent; member of the Bars of the District of Columbia, the State of New York, England and Wales, and the Law Society of Ontario, Christina L. Beharry; Barrister from Matrix Chambers, London, Edward Craven; member of the Bar of the State of New York, Juan Pablo Hugues Arthur; and member of the Bar of the District of Columbia, Isabella F Uria.

Proceedings
Having rejected both of Venezuela’s preliminary objections in the case brought against it by Guyana, who is seeking a final and binding ruling on the October 3, 1899 Arbitral Award, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has set April 8, 2024 as the time limit for the filing of a Counter-Memorial by Venezuela. It has reserved the subsequent procedure for further decision.
Guyana maintains that this 1899 Arbitral Award settled the land boundary between the two countries.
In a move that delayed the substantive hearing of the border case, Venezuela had, in June 2022, filed Preliminary Objections claiming that the case is improperly before the court.
It argued that such a case should not have been brought by Guyana, but by the United Kingdom, the then Great Britain, which had signed the 1899 Arbitral Award with Venezuela to demarcate Guyana’s boundaries – Guyana then being one of Britain’s colonies, known as British Guiana at that time.
Guyana and Venezuela have both presented submissions on this matter before the World Court in November 2022. And in April 2023, by 14 votes to one, the ICJ rejected Venezuela’s preliminary objection in respect to Guyana not being the proper party to ask the court to bring finality to the issue.
United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, in January 2018, decided that the case should be settled by the ICJ, after exercising the powers vested in him to decide how the controversy should be settled by Geneva Agreement between Guyana, Venezuela and the UK. He resorted to judicial settlement after the Good Office Process between Guyana and Venezuela failed. Within the framework of that agreement between the two countries, the Secretary General conducted Good Offices from 1990 to 2017 to find a solution to the border controversy. Guyana filed the case against Venezuela on March 29, 2018.
Venezuela is laying claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass, the Essequibo, and a portion of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in which more than nine billion barrels of oil have been discovered over the past six years.
Guyana is, among other things, asking the ICJ to declare that the 1899 Arbitral Award is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela, and that the latter is internationally responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereign rights and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.
After exhausting all means of negotiation with Venezuela and the failed Good Offices Process between the two South American neighbours, Guyana moved to the World Court in 2019 for a final and binding ruling on the October 3, 1899 Arbitral Award settling the land boundary between the two countries.
Venezuela had initially refused to participate in the proceedings, and had even challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter. But on December 18, 2020, the ICJ established that it has jurisdiction to hear the substantive case – something which Venezuela did not accept, hence its Preliminary Objections in June 2022. (G12)