…Geneva Agreement paved way for judicial settlement in Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy
By Svetlana Marshall
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), by a 12-4 majority, ruled that it has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, in a case brought by Guyana against its western neighbour, Venezuela, in keeping with a recommendation by the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres.
Though it opted not to participate in the case, the Spanish speaking country, had submitted that the ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear the case, but the Court, in agreeing with the arguments put by Guyana, ruled that the 1966 Geneva Agreement laid the foundation for judicial settlement.
“…By virtue of Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Agreement, the parties [Guyana and Venezuela] accepted the possibility of the controversy being resolved by means of judicial settlement,” President of the ICJ, Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said as he handed down the judgement at the Peace Palace in The Hague on Friday.
The 1899 Arbitral Award legally established the location of the land boundary between then British Guiana and Venezuela. However, Venezuela, after more than 60 years of the issuance of the Arbitral Award, contended that it was null and void but Guyana has long maintained that the Award was a full, perfect and final settlement and therefore remains valid to this day.
In January 2018, the UN Secretary-General resorted to the Court after the Mixed Commission (1966-1970), a 12-year moratorium (1970-1982), a seven-year process of consultations on a means of settlement (1983-1990), and the Good Offices Process (1990-2017) failed to resolve the controversy.
In its 39-page ruling, the ICJ established that the UN Secretary General, acted in conformity with Article IV of the Geneva Agreement, when he chose the Court as the means of judicial settlement for the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela.
“Given that Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Agreement refers to Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, which includes judicial settlement as a means of dispute resolution, the Court considers that the parties accepted the possibility of the controversy being settled by that means. It is of the opinion that if they had wished to exclude such a possibility, the Parties could have done so during their negotiations. Equally, instead of referring to Article 33 of the Charter, they could have set out the means of settlement envisaged while omitting judicial settlement, which they did not do either,” the ICJ President reasoned.
In arriving at its conclusion, the World Court also took into consideration the joint statement on the ministerial conversations held in Geneva on 16th and 17th February 1966 between the Venezuelan Minister for Foreign Affairs, his British counterpart and the Prime Minister of British Guiana.
Further, the ICJ President pointed out, that Venezuelan Law ratifying the Geneva Agreement of 13 April 1966 states as follows: “Every single part and all parts of the Agreement signed in Geneva on 17 February 1966 by the Governments of the Republic of Venezuela and [the] United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in consultation with the Government of British Guiana, in order to solve the issue between Venezuela and [the] United Kingdom over the border line with British Guiana have been approved for any relevant legal purposes.”
Based on the evidence before the Court, the Judge said the ICJ could only conclude that Venezuela and Guyana consented to the judicial settlement of their controversy.
He noted that in arriving at his decision, the UN Secretary-General expressly relied upon Article IV of the Geneva Agreement after previous means of settlement, such as the Good Offices Process which spanned for approximately 25 years, failed to result in a peaceful resolution of the controversy.
“The Court is of the view that the means previously chosen by the Secretary-General “d[id] not lead to a solution of the controversy” within the terms of Article IV, paragraph 2. By 2014, the Parties had already been engaged in the good offices process within the framework of the Geneva Agreement for over twenty years, under the supervision of three Personal Representatives appointed by successive Secretaries-General, in order to find a solution to the controversy,” the ICJ President pointed out.
In announcing his decision on January 30, 2018, the UN Secretary-General stated that no significant progress had been made towards arriving at a full agreement for the solution of the controversy in the good offices process, and as such, had chosen the ICJ as a means that to be used for its solution.
“Neither Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Agreement nor Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations expressly mentions the International Court of Justice. However, the Court, being the “principal judicial organ of the United Nations” (Article 92 of the Charter of the United Nations), constitutes a means of “judicial settlement” within the meaning of Article 33 of the Charter. The Secretary-General could therefore choose the Court, on the basis of Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Agreement, as the judicial means of settlement of the controversy between the Parties,” the ICJ President explained.
President Irfaan Ali, who viewed the ruling at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC) together with other Guyanese Officials, said decision should be celebrated by all of Guyana and should be seen as a healing point for the country.
The President, members of his Cabinet, former Speaker of the National Assembly Dr Barton Scotland, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Carl Greenidge and other officials viewed the historic ruling by the ICJ.
Upon hearing the decision of the Court, the Head of State immediately called and thanked Sir Shridath Ramphal – Guyana’s first Attorney General – who led Guyana’s arguments and Paul Reichler of international law firm Foley Hoag, who represented Guyana.
The President said it was a privilege to speak to Sir Shridath, but noted that the victory was one that took hard work and dedication from many persons, over many years. “I want this morning to go beyond our lawyers and our legal team, I want to thank all of those who played such an integral part of this process, the names are too many to mention, many of whom are in this room,” the President said.
President Ali pointed out that despite political differences Guyana’s Governments over the years have been steadfast in their desire to protect our sovereignty and resolute in defending our territorial integrity. “We have always stood together, we have always recognised together, and demonstrated to the International Community together that we are one and that we are united on our sovereignty and borders,” he said.
The President noted that the ruling was a great victory for Guyana and it should be used to unite the country going forward.
