President Ali says, reaffirms country’s support for peaceful resolution

GUYANA is making progress in finding a final and binding solution to its decades-long border controversy with Venezuela, and President, Dr. Irfaan Ali, has reaffirmed the country’s support for international law.

Dr. Ali, during an address to the Permanent Council of the Organisation of American States’ Protocolary Meeting in Washington, D.C., on Friday, said that accepting established borders has always been a feature of the country as it supports peaceful resolution of issues. These comments were made as he referenced the country’s own controversy with its western neighbour.

“Guyana drawing inspiration from the charter of the OAS and the United Nations has consistently pursued that path of peaceful resolution of this unfounded claim,” the Guyanese Head of State said.

Currently, the border controversy case is before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

“Accepting established borders has been the tradition in our hemisphere, a tradition that has shielded our nations from conflicts, paving the way for peace, co-operation and development. Guyana stands firm in its belief that peaceful settlement of disputes is not merely an option, but a duty and a cornerstone principle of the OAS charter,” the President added.

In April of this year, the world court ruled that the case Guyana brought before it seeking to affirm the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award settling the boundaries between it and Venezuela was admissible.

This meant that the court could move forward with hearing the substantive case on its merits, of whether the 1899 arbitral award settling the boundaries of the two countries is valid and binding.

“We’ll continue to champion the cause of international law as we seek a lasting, peaceful resolution to a territorial claim, one that was resurrected on the brink of our independence after decades of acceptance,” Dr. Ali stressed.

The ruling marked the second time that the international court has rejected jurisdictional objections raised by Venezuela.

Guyana moved to the ICJ with its case in March 2018, challenging the non-participating Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela over its disagreement on the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Award.

Venezuela maintained that the ICJ was without jurisdiction to hear the case and refused to participate in the court proceedings.

The Spanish-speaking country had claimed that it is the “sole indisputable inheritor” of the Essequibo region and the Monetary Gold Principle.

Although Venezuela had claimed that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction to hear the substantive case, the country made a U-turn following the court’s December 2020 ruling on that aspect of the case. Venezuela on that occasion contended that Guyana had no standing in the matter.

Venezuela had argued that the United Kingdom was the proper party since the territory was “given” to Guyana by the British. However, the ICJ found that Venezuela’s objection on the basis of the Monetary Gold principle is an objection to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction and thus does not constitute an objection to jurisdiction.

Based on a thorough analysis of the facts and relevant legal precedents, the ‘World Court’ also found Venezuela’s preliminary objection was admissible on this ground.

The court found that in view of the above, the practice of the parties to the Geneva Agreement further demonstrates the two countries’ agreement that the dispute could be settled without the involvement of the United Kingdom.

The court unanimously rejected Venezuela’s objection.

Guyana is seeking a final and binding judgement that the 1899 Arbitral Award, which established the location of the land boundary between then British Guiana and Venezuela, remains valid and that the Essequibo region belongs to Guyana and not Venezuela.