…SG lauds UN decision to send border controversy to ICJ

COMMONWEALTH Secretary-General Patricia Scotland has welcomed the decision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Gutteres, to refer the long-standing border controversy between Guyana and Venezuela to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

In a statement posted on its website, the Commonwealth SG recalled that at the September 2017 meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Group on Guyana, ministers noted Guyana’s concern that this long-standing controversy has impacted the country’s economic development.

The secretary-general further recalled that at the last Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Malta in November, 2015, the leaders noted that “the Geneva Agreement of 1966 between the Parties provides a range of mechanisms for an expeditious solution to the controversy arising from Venezuela’s contention of invalidity of the 1899 Arbitral Award. The Heads expressed their full support for the United Nations Secretary-General to choose a means of settlement in keeping with the provisions of the Geneva Agreement 1966, to bring the controversy to a definitive end.”
According to the statement, the secretary-general reiterated the unequivocal and collective support of Commonwealth member governments for the maintenance and safeguarding of Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Gutteres in referring the matter to the ICJ, had said that the controversy arose as a result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela is null and void. In the Geneva Agreement of 1966, Guyana and Venezuela conferred upon the secretary-general the power and responsibility to choose a means of peaceful settlement from amongst those contemplated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. The Geneva Agreement also provides that if the means so chosen does not lead to a solution of the controversy, the secretary-general is to choose another means of settlement.

“Former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon communicated to the parties on 15 December 2016, a framework for the resolution of the border controversy based on his conclusions on what would constitute the most appropriate next steps. Notably, he concluded that the Good Offices Process, which had been conducted since 1990, would continue for one final year, until the end of 2017, with a strengthened mandate of mediation. He also reached the conclusion that if, by the end of 2017, his successor, Secretary-General António Guterres, concluded that significant progress had not been made towards arriving at a full agreement for the solution of the controversy, he would choose the International Court of Justice as the next means of settlement, unless the Governments of Guyana and Venezuela jointly requested that he refrain from doing so,” the UN statement read.

It added that in early 2017, Secretary-General Guterres had appointed a Personal Representative, Mr. Dag Halvor Nylander, who engaged in intensive high-level efforts to seek a negotiated settlement to the controversy. “The secretary-general has carefully analysed developments in 2017 in the Good Offices process and has concluded that significant progress has not been made toward arriving at a full agreement for the solution of the controversy. Accordingly, the secretary-general has fulfilled the responsibility that has fallen to him within the framework set by his predecessor in December 2016, and has chosen the International Court of Justice as the means to be used for resolution of the controversy. In reaching this decision, the secretary-general has also reached the conclusion that Guyana and Venezuela could benefit from the continued good offices of the United Nations through a complementary process established on the basis of the powers of the secretary-general under the Charter of the United Nations. The secretary-general, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations, remains committed to accompany both States as they seek to overcome their differences regarding this border controversy,” the statement ended.

President David Granger has said that the decision by Guterres should be respected by both countries.
A week ago, distinguished Guyanese diplomat Sir Shridath Ramphal said that the final judgment handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Guyana/Venezuela territorial controversy will be binding. Speaking to reporters on the matter on the margins of the just concluded Guyana International Petroleum Business Summit (GIPEX) at the Guyana Marriott Sir Shridath, who was present at the signing of the Geneva Agreement on February 17, 1966, said Guyana will be moving to the ICJ to have the age-old controversy settled. The World Court’s decision, he said, will be obligatory in nature, while making it clear that it will not be simply an opinion as suggested by some political analysts here.

“The decision of the court will be binding… it is not going to be in an advisory capacity…. Unfortunately, some pretty wild things have been said in Guyana which are far from legally accurate,” Sir Shridath said. It was explained that the ICJ’s ruling will be made under the 1966 Geneva Agreement and Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. It was under the Geneva Agreement that Guyana and Venezuela had conferred upon the UN Secretary-General the power and responsibility to choose a means of peaceful settlement from amongst those contemplated in Article 33 of the Charter.

In moving forward, Sir Shridath said it is important that the country approaches the matter with some degree of caution and professionalism. “I think that it is very important that we are modest, we are not celebratory, [and] we are not triumphalist. We are going to be modest, serious, and professional and move forward.” The Guyana Government has disclosed that US$15M has been set aside for legal fees. Legal expenses, Sir Shridath said, is necessary for the process, but pointed to the fact that a lot is at stake. “If you go to the court there must be some legal expense, but what is at stake for Guyana is everything, so legal expenses are minuscule to what is at stake and what I think we are likely to do is reassemble the team that was successful in [the] Suriname [matter] and this is not about discussing those details, but they will be released in due course,” he told reporters. Foley Hoag was the law firm that successfully spearheaded the case for the Government of Guyana in the maritime boundary dispute with Suriname. The Government of Venezuela, in a public statement, rejected the UN Secretary- General’s decision, stating that it remains firm its historic position – that the matter be resolved at the level of the Good Offices. But Mr. Guterres, in making his decision, concluded that no significant progress had been made at the level of the Good Offices process.