…as Venezuela refuses to defend claims

THE Venezuelan Government has declined to defend its claim over the Essequibo at the International Court of Justice, saying that it does not recognise the jurisdiction of the court in the matter, although calling it an “honourable international justice body,” in a statement issued on Monday.

However, Guyana says it intends to proceed with the case, noting that under Article 53 of the Statute of the Court, “whenever one of the parties does not appear before the Court, or fails to defend its case, the other Party may call upon the Court to decide in favour of its claim.”

Guyana has also said that it hopes in due course, Venezuela will reconsider its position and decide to appear in Court and defend its case.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement Monday evening, said that Vice- President and Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Greenidge and Guyana’s Legal Counsel attended the meeting convened by the Honourable Abdulqawi Abdul Yusuf, President of the International Court of Justice on Monday to discuss with Guyana and Venezuela the scheduling of written pleadings in the case, the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela).

The ministry said that subsequent to this meeting, Guyana noted the issuance of a press release by Venezuela stating that it would not be participating in the case.
Said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its statement: “Guyana is fully committed to the rule of law in international relations, including the peaceful resolution of disputes in conformity with international law.

It trusts that the International Court of Justice, the judicial organ of the United Nations, will resolve the controversy with Venezuela in accordance with the law in a manner that is fair and equitable. It hopes that, in due course, Venezuela will reconsider its position and decide to appear in Court and defend its case. The Court’s rules allow for that.”

At the same time, Guyana said that if Venezuela persists in its refusal to participate in the matter, the rules provide for the Court to proceed, after a full hearing of the case, to a final judgment that is legally binding on both the participating and nonparticipating parties.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wishes to reiterate that Guyana fully respects the decision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to choose the International Court of Justice as the means of settlement of the controversy and is confident that the Court is fully empowered to decide the case,” the Foreign Ministry statement read.

NO PARTICIPATION
Meanwhile, a communiqué issued by the People’s Power Ministry for Foreign Affairs said Monday after meeting with International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf:
“The Venezuelan delegation has informed the president of the court, through a letter signed by the President of the Republic, Nicolás Maduro Moros, of its sovereign decision not to participate in the procedure that Guyana intends to initiate, since the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction over an action unilaterally proposed by the neighbouring country, which does not have the consent of Venezuela.”

Guyana had filed an application with the ICJ on March 29, 2018, requesting the Court to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Arbitral Award regarding the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela. As such, the ICJ invited representatives of both Guyana and Venezuela to meet at the ICJ in The Hague, seat of government of the Netherlands, to fix schedules for written pleadings.

On Monday, however, Venezuela, through its Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez, who was accompanied by Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, made it clear that its decision not to participate in the ICJ matter “is consistent with Venezuela’s historical position of not recognising the jurisdiction of such international judicial body, in no case, and much less to settle this controversy where Venezuela shall make all efforts to defend its legitimate rights to the Guyana Esequiba.”

It then went on to say in its statement, “The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela dwelled the occasion to reiterate to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana the invitation to resume the good faith negotiations with the broadest, most sincere and best willingness to reach a settlement which may be practical and satisfactory for both parties, as intended by the 1966 Geneva Agreement.”

Earlier this year, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres referred the Guyana-Venezuela controversy to the ICJ. He determined that the Good Offices Process had failed to achieve a peaceful settlement of the controversy. Guterres 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.

Venezuela is claiming that the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award, which had given more than 90 per cent of an area to the then British Guiana (now Guyana), is null and void. Approximately 118 years after that award was issued, Guyana remains resolute in its position that a juridical course of action is the only means through which this matter can be permanently resolved.

In its Application, Guyana requests 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 3 October 1899 (hereinafter the ‘1899 Award’).”
Guyana is contending 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.

It is also Guyana’s position that, between November 1900 and June 1904, a joint Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Commission “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 by Guyana as the “1905 Agreement”).
Guyana is further contending that in 1962, for the first time, Venezuela contested the Award as “arbitrary” and “null and void”.

This, according to the Applicant, 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 17 February 1966 (the Geneva Agreement), which “provided for recourse to a series of dispute settlement mechanisms to finally resolve the controversy”.

Additionally, Guyana submits that the Geneva Agreement 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.