Ruling on jurisdiction likely by year end – Greenidge

Guyana-Venezuela border controversy case

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is likely to rule by the end of 2020 on whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case filed by Guyana, who is asking for a final pronouncement on the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) regarding the boundary between the two countries.

This is according to recently appointed Advisor on Borders, Carl Greenidge. On June 30, 2020, the ICJ, which has its headquarters in The Hague, 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 dispute 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.

When contacted on Thursday, Greenidge told Guyana Times that such cases could take an average of up to six years to conclude, while noting that it depends on the complexity of the case and whether both countries participate in the proceedings.
“On average, the court takes about six years plus to conclude such matters. Yes, it can take as long as six years. It depends on how complex the case is. [As it relates to when the court is] due for its decision as it regards to jurisdiction…one would expect sometime between now and this quarter,” the Advisor on Borders noted.
The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has claimed, in a letter to the ICJ, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), António Guterres, exceeded his authority under the 1966 Geneva Agreement when he referred the case to the ICJ, and therefore the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
On this basis, Venezuela has indicated that it will not participate in the proceedings. However, Greenidge said he is still hopeful that the Spanish-speaking nation would participate in the matter.
“…We [Guyana] have the arguments that we have presented to the court. Given how we have arrived at this point, Venezuela is not in a position to say that they are not bound by the decision of the court, because they have agreed to a process, they have participated in the process up to now. Whether or not [Venezuela] participates, it make no difference to the capacity of the court…,” Greenidge emphasised.

The Agreement to resolve the controversy over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana, commonly known as the Geneva Agreement, is a treaty signed in Geneva, Switzerland, on February 17, 1966 that resolved the disagreement between Venezuela and the United Kingdom regarding the border between Venezuela and British Guiana.

Legally binding
On March 29, 2018, Guyana filed an application instituting proceeding against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In its application, Guyana requested the Court to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the Award regarding the boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, of October 03, 1899.
Guyana claimed that the 1899 Award was “a full, perfect, and final settlement’ of all questions relating to determining the boundary line between the colony of British Guiana and Venezuela. Guyana asserts that between November 1900 and June 1904, a joint Anglo – Venezuelan Boundary Commission had “identified, demarcated and permanently fixed the boundary established by the Award” before the signing of a Joint Declaration by the Commissioners on 10 January 1905 (referred to as “the 1905 Agreement”). Guyana contends that, in 1962, for the first time, Venezuela had contested the Award as “arbitrary” and “null and void.”
This, according to Guyana, had led to the signing of the Agreement to resolve the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana at Geneva on February 17, 1966, which “provided for recourse to a series of dispute settlement mechanisms to finally resolve the controversy.
Guyana, therefore, argues that pursuant to Article IV (2) of the Agreement, the Secretary General is empowered to decide on the settlement to be employed should there be any issues arising from that Agreement.
According to Article IV (2 ) of the Agreement: If, within three months of receiving the final report, the Government of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela should not have reached agreement regarding the choice of one of the means of settlement provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agree or, failing agreement on this point, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. If the means so chosen do not lead to a solution of the controversy, the said organ or, as the case may be, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall choose another of the means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, and so on until the controversy has been resolved or until all the means of peaceful settlement there contemplated have been exhausted.
Guyana further submitted that the Geneva Agreement had authorized the United Nations Secretary-General to decide which appropriate dispute resolution mechanism to adopt for the peaceful settlement of the dispute, in accordance with Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.
On January 30, 2018, Secretary-General Guterres determined that the good offices process had failed to achieve a peaceful settlement of the controversy. He then took a formal and binding decision, under Article IV, paragraph 2 of the Agreement, to choose a different means of settlement under Article 33 of the Charter.

Adjudge and declare
In identical letters to Guyana and Venezuela, he communicated the terms of his decision that, pursuant to the authority vested in him by the Geneva Agreement, the controversy shall be settled by recourse to the ICJ.
In its Application, filed “pursuant to the Secretary-General’s decision”, Guyana requested the court to adjudge and declare that the 1899 Award was valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela, and the boundary established by that Award and the 1905 Agreement was valid and binding upon the two countries.
Further, Guyana is asking for a declaration that it enjoyed full sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River and the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement, and Venezuela enjoyed full sovereignty over the territory west of that boundary. And that Guyana and Venezuela were 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.
Guyana also wants the court to declare that Venezuela had to immediately withdraw from and cease its occupation of the eastern half of the Island of Ankoko, and each and every other territory which was recognized as Guyana’s sovereign territory in accordance with the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement.
Furthermore, Guyana also wants the court to declare that Venezuela had to 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 had sovereignty or exercised sovereign rights, and shall not interfere with any Guyanese or Guyanese-authorized activities in those areas.
Guyana is finally asking the ICJ to declare that Venezuela was internationally responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights, and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.