— as Guyana prepares for case against Venezuela at ICJ

THE Government of Guyana has identified a legal firm to fight Guyana’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Venezuela, Vice-President and Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Greenidge has disclosed.

Since 1962, Venezuela has been contending that the 1899 Arbitral Award, which had given more than 90 per cent of an area to then British Guiana (now Guyana), is null and void, although it had initially accepted the award.
The final judgment handed down by the ICJ will bring an end to this long-standing territorial controversy and Guyana is well equipped to prove that the award remains valid.
Speaking to the Guyana Chronicle on the sideline of Ground Structures Engineering Consultants Inc. 25th Anniversary and office opening at Liliendaal, East Coast Demerara on Saturday, Minister Greenidge, who is the acting prime minister, disclosed that the government has already identified a legal firm to accelerate the process.

However, he explained that “the process of contracting the firm has not been completed” and as such, the name will not be released just yet.
Additionally, he said the legal team has been constantly meeting. “The legal team is meeting and the legal team will meet again in this coming week…the enhance team,” the foreign affairs minister told this newspaper.

The Guyana Government has disclosed that US$15M has been set aside for legal fees. In February, distinguished Guyanese diplomat, Sir Shridath Ramphal, who forms a main part of the legal team, had told journalists that the government was likely to reassemble a team that was used in the past.
“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.
On January 30, 2018, Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres, disclosed that Gutteres in fulfilling the responsibility bestowed upon him within the framework set by his predecessor Ban Ki-moon in December 2016, had chosen the ICJ as the means to be used for solution of the controversy.

Ban and Guterres, in keeping with the 1966 agreement, had agreed to refer the Guyana/Venezuela border controversy to the ICJ if significant progress was not made in arriving at a full agreement for settlement of the controversy at the level of the Good Offices process. It was because no significant progress had been made at the level of the Good Offices process that the matter was referred to the ICJ for final settlement.

AT A LATER TIME
Guyana is expected to make an application to the ICJ for the case to be initiated, but the date on which such action will be taken, will not be disclosed just yet, the foreign affairs minister said.

Upon learning of the decision of the UN Secretary-General, Venezuela objected, but in his online column ‘Conversation Tree,’ Senior Counsel Ralph Ramkarran earlier this year said Venezuela should be reminded of key elements of the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
He pointed out that by Article IV(1) of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, the Governments of Guyana and Venezuela committed to choosing one of the means of peaceful settlement provided for by article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN), if the Mixed Commission did not arrive at a full agreement for settlement of the controversy within four years.

Ramkarran emphasised that judicial settlement was one of those means under Article 33.
“But the part of the article providing for the parties to choose the means of settlement is qualified by Article V. It provides that they are to refer the decision of the means of settlement to an ‘appropriate international organ on which they both agree,’ but failing agreement ‘to the Secretary-General of the United Nations,’” he explained
Ramkarran noted that after conclusion of the mandate of the Mixed Commission, the Governments of Guyana, Venezuela and the United Kingdom entered into an agreement known as the Port of Spain Protocol in June, 1970, which suspended the operation of Article IV of the Geneva Agreement for 12 years. “This meant effectively that the formal search under Article IV for a resolution of the controversy was suspended for the period. Guyana and Venezuela undertook to ‘explore all possibilities of better understanding between them,’” he explained.

The Protocol of Port of Spain came to an end in 1982 and was not renewed, he recalled.
It was then that the parties agreed to refer the matter to the UNSG, who selected the Good Officer process under Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.

“It eventually became clear to Guyana after 50 years of effort that the controversy could not be resolved by discussion and negotiation. A reference of the matter to the International Commission of Jurists, the World Court, appeared to be the only solution. Guyana prevailed upon the UN Secretary-General to do so, as Venezuela would never have agreed.

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki- Moon, agreed, but with a proviso that an enhanced Good Officer process should continue for another year and that he would only refer the matter if there was no significant progress. The Good Officer Process did not produce significant progress and so the UN Secretary-General referred the matter to the ICJ or World Court,” the senior counsel explained.