ICJ finds it has jurisdiction to hear Guyana – Venezuela border controversy case

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that it has jurisdiction to hear the case filed by Guyana, asking for a final pronouncement on the validity of the Arbitral Award of 1899 as it relates to the border between Guyana and Venezuela.

The Court found that while it has jurisdiction to hear and determine issues concerning the 1899 Arbitral Award and the related question of the definite boundary between Guyana and Venezuela, it does not have jurisdiction to hear any issues arising after the signing of the Geneva Agreement.

The ruling was moments ago delivered by ICJ President Justice Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf from the Peace Palace in The Hague.

On June 30, 2020, the ICJ, which has its headquarters in the Netherlands, heard oral arguments via video conference from Guyana’s legal team headed by Sir Shridath Ramphal on the question of its jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter.

The case is premised on a border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela in which the Spanish-speaking country has laid claim to more than two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass in the Essequibo region and a portion of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in which more than eight billion barrels of oil have been discovered.

After a failed good offices process between the two neighbouring countries, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, in 2018, had referred the border controversy matter to be resolved by the World Court.

Shortly after, Guyana filed a case seeking a final and binding judgment that the 1899 Arbitral Award remains valid and binding on all parties, and legal affirmation that Guyana’s Essequibo region, which contains much of Guyana’s natural resources, belongs to Guyana and not Venezuela.

On June 30, 2020, the ICJ held its first public hearing of the border controversy case via video conference on whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case on the border controversy between the neighbouring States.

Venezuela has since indicated that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the court.

More details in a subsequent report