Dear Editor,
Contrary to the erroneous impression given by the caption of Ms Lye’s Letter to the Editor in Stabroek News of August 27 `It is time for the ICJ to act’, the Government of Guyana (GOG) is not awaiting a decision of the ICJ in order to enable Guyana to exploit the resources within its maritime space, its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
As regards the writer’s contention that, “so many different oil companies [are] staking out their claims off Guyana’s coast”, I wish to state categorically that no such activity is taking place. There is a well-established process, consistent with domestic and international law and international best practice, whereby the authorised GOG agencies grant licences authorizing companies to undertake certain activities including exploration, research or mining activities in the EEZ. There is no free-for-all as implied in the preamble to the question.
Furthermore, there was no, “government decision in April this year to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to proceed directly to the holding of oral hearings on the border controversy with Venezuela”. The Government, consistent with the decision of the Secretary General of the United Nations, approached the Court for a determination of the issue of the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award. The Court indicated that, as per normal in such circumstances, it would first be determining the question of the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter. Since in the course of the session held by the Court, the Venezuela representatives indicated that they did not recognise the jurisdiction of the Court on this matter and would not participate in the proceedings, the GOG asked the Court to move directly to the oral hearings on the question of jurisdiction.
“Would this be like CGX which went full force in the Corentyne only to back down under pressure from Suriname?” In the first place, CGX has never been authorised by the GOG to conduct any seismic activity in the Corentyne River, but was authorized to conduct such activities in Guyana’s EEZ. The MoFA is completely unaware of the sequence of events the writer describes in this way. The sequence was, the CGX vessel undertaking seismic work in accordance with the licence provided by Guyana was forcibly removed from the area by the Surinamese military. Following the breakdown of negotiations between the two States, the GOG instituted Arbitral proceedings against Suriname in accordance with the provisions of Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). For the record, that Arbitral Tribunal found that Suriname acted in breach of international law, by threat of the use of force. In addition, the Tribunal awarded the disputed area to Guyana and by virtue of the arbitral award, is now established as part of Guyanese territory, part of its EEZ. Liza 1 lies within that area and 86 miles within the now demarcated border. The CGX has not, since 2007, been prevented from exploring or drilling in Guyana’s EEZ in the area in which they have been licensed to conduct activities.
The writer has asserted that, “We seem to be counting our chickens before they hatch. Guyana is now at the crossroads of so-called economic prosperity or maybe economic doom. It is time for the ICJ to act lest we venture into very muddy waters.”
The legality of companies operating within Guyana’s EEZ is not dependent on any decision of the Court. As previously mentioned, the Court is addressing the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award which pertains to the land territory. Assuming that the Court decides that the 1899 award is still valid, the EEZ of Guyana will remain the area bounded by two near parallel 200 mile lines beginning from Point Playa and Point 61, respectively. The two countries, Venezuela and Guyana need to agree based on the applicable principles of international law on the demarcation of the western border. Obviously the starting point of this boundary is Point Playa, the only sense in which the Court decision directly touches the maritime space, since Point Playa is also the land boundary terminus. Pending maritime delimitation between Guyana and some of its neighbours, Guyana has delineated its maritime boundaries and issued licences for exploration and exploitation of its natural resources, based on the applicable principles of international law. . That would be one reason why the suggestion that Guyana is faced by either economic prosperity or doom is not warranted by the facts and reflects the very pessimistic and even silly debates to be found in the Guyana newspapers post 2015. Presumably by ‘economic doom’, the writer means that Guyana may not be able to exploit the mineral resources in the EEZ because the petroleum companies, and Exxon in particular, may be prevented from mining petroleum in the EEZ. In order for such an eventuality to materialise, there would have to be illegal action by way of military intervention to physically force the licenced operators out.
As observed above, the ICJ has not been charged with any maritime related matter and therefore is not intended to prevent such action in the immediate future. Prevention will depend on good sense on the part of the Venezuela authorities, continued proactive and vigorous diplomatic action on the part of ourselves and our allies at the bilateral and the UN level in particular and Guyana’s mustering of timely, appropriate countervailing or preventative measures.
For all of these reasons, both the caption and the substance of the letter are quite misleading, if not erroneous.
As regards the Editor’s note, the Government has indicated as recently as last week that having requested the ICJ to begin oral hearings on the matter of jurisdiction, the Court has indicated that it will seek to accommodate the request. No date has been set for those hearings. The Court is however, due to brief the Guyana team in mid-September on progress and related issues.
Yours faithfully,
Carl Greenidge
