Ending the Venezuelan Border controversy

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has announced it will begin oral hearings on the Venezuelan Border Controversy case starting May 4, following which it will deliberate and issue its final judgement on the merits, which will be binding on the parties. It would appear that our long struggle for justice against Venezuelan revanchism might be coming to an end, and as such, maybe a review is appropriate. The United Nations Secretary-General, acting in his official capacity according to Article 33 of the UN Charter, had referred the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in accordance with the terms of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, to which Venezuela is a signatory. This was the most significant development in decades for a resolution.
For too long since 1966, Guyana had gone along with every one of the measures contained and elaborated by that agreement, which also has Great Britain as one of the parties. The Agreement is very clear that the only matter to be addressed was Venezuela’s claim that the 1899 full and final award was “null and void”. The proposed Mixed Commission in the Agreement, for instance, met to examine Venezuela’s proof of this “nullity”, but Venezuela was unable to proffer such proof and went on to make the same demand they have kept on trumpeting: that the settled frontier between the two countries be revised in a “practical settlement of the controversy”. Eventually the Mixed Commission had to be abrogated after its stipulated four-year term because of Venezuela’s intransigence, and a decade-long moratorium was declared.
Ironically, in 1983, it was Venezuela that proposed its controversy be placed under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the UN, in accordance with Article IV Sec 2 of the Geneva Agreement, which complied with Article 33 of the UN Charter concerning the means of peaceful solutions of controversies. After much discussion, by 1989, there was finally an agreement on one of the means – the Good Officer process of the UN Secretary-General. This kicked off the following year with a number of prominent individuals, such as Norman Girvan, serving in that role. Girvan passed in 2014 without any settlement to the controversy because Venezuela would once again not budge from its position of a “negotiated settlement”.
Finally, towards the end of 2016, the predecessor to the present Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, Ban Ki-moon, signalled his intention to move the controversy to the ICJ if progress was not made within a year. Venezuela did not make any formal protest to this proposal, and for it to subsequently reject the UN Secretary-General’s telegraphed decision was to palpably demonstrate bad faith.
Venezuela was depending on its rejection of the jurisdiction of the ICJ to halt the process – over which Guyana has exercised the patience of Job. Even as Venezuela under Nicolas Maduro moved to annex Essequibo by holding a referendum to give its move “legitimacy”, Guyana’s President Ali participated in the Argyll Agreement with Venezuela’s President Maduro to have the Caribbean remain a “zone of peace”. Yet Venezuela embarked on overt acts of hostilities, such as Government-supported Sindicatos firing at GDF soldiers across the Cuyuni River border and having one of their warships challenge an FPSO in our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Upon application by Guyana, the ICJ issued a declaration to no avail that Venezuela refrain from the referendum and the consequent appointment of officials over the territory. Guyana has filed two written pleadings on the merits, as has Venezuela – with the latter’s caveat of non-recognition of the ICJ’s jurisdiction. There is precedence in international law for the court to deliver a decision on the controversy, and it is hoped that with the US, which has supported the ICJ process for a settlement, present in Venezuela, the Government of President (Ag) Delcy Rodriguez will accept the decision. This would be a great victory for the region, since it would demonstrate conclusively that Venezuela is finally willing to settle its controversy by one of the most trusted peaceful methods – judicial settlement.