HAGUE – Guyana remains optimistic that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will rule in its favour in the border dispute with Venezuela after the court Monday ended two rounds of oral pleadings.
Venezuela’s acting President, Delcy Rodriquez, addressing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday in the presence of. Guyana’s Attorney General Anil Nandlally. (CMC Photo)“The Court will now deliberate on the matters before it and, in the coming months, will issue its final Judgment on the merits of the case, which will be legally binding on both parties,” Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall said in a lengthy statement.
He said the very fact that the case reached the ICJ, and that the written and oral phases of the proceedings were carried out to their completions, “represent a triumph for the rule of law and the rules-based international order.
“Disputes between States must be resolved peacefully, finally and in conformity with international law. They must not be allowed to fester indefinitely. They must never be resolved by threat or use of military force.
“Guyana has pledged repeatedly, including at these oral hearings, that it will abide by the Court’s Judgment, whatever it may be. Guyana is confident – in fact, after these oral hearings, Guyana is more confident than ever – that the Court will uphold the legal validity of the unanimous Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, that established the international boundary between then British Guiana and Venezuela, and will confirm that it is the final, definitive and permanent lawful boundary between Guyana and Venezuela.”
On Monday, Venezuela told the ICJ that it will not allow it to settle the decades’-old border dispute with Guyana.
“Venezuela will never endorse a violation of the Geneva Agreement and international law. There is no legal way of recognising a decision resulting from this process, whatever that may be,” Acting President Delcy Rodriquez said as the ICJ wrapped up oral submissions on the issue.
The ICJ, established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the UN, has in the past ruled that it has the authority to adjudicate on the border dispute.
Guyana brought the case before the ICJ in 2018, seeking affirmation that the 1899 Arbitral Award, establishing the boundary between the two countries, is legally valid. The award had been accepted for over 60 years before Venezuela declared it null in 1962 and revived its claim to the territory.
The matter is being addressed under the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which outlines mechanisms for a peaceful settlement. After bilateral efforts failed, the dispute was referred to the ICJ by the United Nations Secretary-General.
The Essequibo region comprises roughly the western two-thirds of Guyana spanning 61,600 square miles. It is a resource-rich region bordered by the Essequibo River to the east and Venezuela to the west, which Venezuela claims as its own.
Rodriquez, who appeared before the ICJ panel of judges wearing a brooch depicting Venezuela’s claim to the Essequibo, said that controversy must be resolved politically under the 1966 Geneva Agreement.
She repeated on several occasions that Venezuela does not recognise the court’s jurisdiction, saying that her appearance “does not imply in any way recognition of the court’s jurisdiction in the territorial controversy”.
Rodríguez said that the Geneva Agreement requires direct negotiation rather than judicial settlement.
But in his statement, Nandlall, who had also made a presentation before the ICJ, said Guyana believes that its arguments were “compelling and convincing, and that they showed the lack of merit in Venezuela’s arguments both on the facts and on the law”.
Nandlall said that the ICJ’s final Judgment will bring to an end, the controversy that arose in 1962, when Venezuela, for the first time, challenged the lawfulness of the 1899 Arbitral Award and the international boundary it established, after accepting, respecting and complying with the Award and the boundary, without protest for 63 years.
“The oral hearings established that Venezuela made this very belated protest precisely at the time Guyana was nearing its independence, British troops would be departing, and Venezuela would have a significant military advantage with which to press its antiquated claim to nearly three-quarters of Guyana’s territory, the very claim that the tribunal of five pre-eminent arbitrators rejected in 1899.”
In his statement in which he reiterated Guyana’s decades old position regarding the ownership of the Essequibo, Nandlall said that “it is our fervent hope that Venezuela’s expression of disrespect for the Court, and for international law, reflects the emotions that often accompany litigation of this kind.
“We hope, that after the passions recede, and responsible government officials reflect, they will conclude, as we have done, that both States are best served by an end to this longstanding conflict, and that the only way to secure a just and lasting peace, and an enduring friendship, is by respect for and compliance with, the Court’s final Judgment, whatever it may be,” Nandlall added.
