Dear Editor,
Not too long after the World Court ruled on Guyana’s application concerning the ‘legal validity and binding effect of the award regarding the boundary between the colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela of October 3, 1899’ the press published two rather interesting interpretations regarding the Court’s decision.
Ralph Ramkarran in the final paragraph of his recent Conversation Tree blog ‘Victory at the World Court’ wrote:
‘Of interest is that in paragraph 135 the ICJ appears to be contending that if it rules that the 1899 Award is null and void, it then has jurisdiction over the related question of the land boundary.’
In a sentence before the final paragraph in his blog Ramkarran opines; ‘Further, the Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the events that took place after the signing of the Geneva Agreement. The seizure of Ankoko, Venezuela’s violation of Guyana’s sovereignty on land and sea, will therefore have to be resolved by other peaceful means.’
Dr Bertrand Ramcharan writing under the headline ‘A reckless World Court decision on border controversy’ in the last Sunday Stabroek took aim at the court’s decision.
He asked; ‘How can the Court, supposedly with a mission to uphold the international rule of law, ignore Venezuela’s illegal occupation of Ankoko island and other territorial incursions?’ He went on, ‘The Court here lost an opportunity to uphold the principles of legality and justice for a small state at the mercy of a much larger bully.’
Experts would however argue that in its application to the Court Guyana did not ask the Court to pronounce on the legality or illegality of Venezuela’s occupation of Ankoko.
Guyana’s application to the Court was limited, it asked the Court to pronounce on the ‘legal validity and binding effect of the Award of 1899.’
It is here that Ramkarran’s question appears relevant meaning, ‘…if it (the Court) rules that the Award is null and void it then has jurisdiction over the related question of the land boundary.’
From this assertion it is to be assumed that, at a given point in time, Guyana will raise in a further application to the Court the question of the land boundary between Guyana and Venezuela now that the question of jurisdiction concerning the legality and binding effect of the Arbitral Award is out of the way.
In the circumstances, it appears that Guyana has opted for a step by step approach to the Court on this long running and complex matter.
Ramcharan’s assertion on the Ankoko question, though an important one, appears to be preemptive, if not premature. There is no ‘lost opportunity’ here. Nor has the Court ‘failed in its mission to uphold the international rule of law’ as Ramcharan claims.
I shudder to think that, of all courts, the World Court would dare replicate our Court of Appeal’s half of sixty-five ruling thus bringing itself into disrepute on the global stage.
Ramcharan raised a number of provocative issues in his article. I ticked ten such issues as follows:
1. ‘The World Court by its own volition invented a land boundary dispute between the two countries;’
2. ‘The Court has jurisdiction to entertain ‘the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the two territories;’
3. `The World Court has given Venezuela a gift in holding that there is a ‘territorial dispute;’
4. `At no time did Guyana invite the Court to hold that there is a ‘territorial dispute;’ This decision is … an irresponsible and reckless one;’
5. ‘The Court recklessly volunteered that the Geneva Agreement uses the term ‘controversy’ as a synonym for the word ‘dispute;’
6. ‘The Court is just wrong in holding that there is a territorial dispute when Guyana has consistently maintained that there was a controversy…;’
7. ‘The Court blithely joins the issue of a territorial dispute to that of the validity of the 1899 Award;’
8. That ‘the Court’s finding that there are now two issues to be decided i) the validity of the Arbitral Award and ii) the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute. That this finding will be of great disservice to Guyana and its people;’
9. That there are two perplexing issues of the World Court’s decision 1) it did not have jurisdiction to entertain Guyana’s claim arising from the events that occurred after the signature of the of the Geneva Agreement and 2) that the Court ignored Venezuela’s illegal occupation of Ankoko island and other illegal territorial incursions;’
10. That ‘Guyana’s lawyers need to seriously consider whether to make an application for the rectification of the decision of the Court or face the risk of Venezuela opportunistically exploiting the gift that the World Court has recklessly handed them’.
All ten issues raised by Ramcharran are interrelated in one way or another, yet he makes the mistake by his misunderstanding of the fundamental question why did Guyana approach the Court and what was the question put to the Court? viz; ‘Does the Court have jurisdiction to entertain Guyana’s application with regards to the dispute concerning the legal validity and binding effect of the award regarding the boundary between the colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela of 3 October 1899.
The Court’s unequivocal and pellucid answer was yes.
Guyana’s sole objective in its application to the Court was to determine the validity and binding nature of the 1899 Award. It is in Guyana’s national interest to do so. On the other hand, Venezuela has no interest in discussing the validity of the Award per se, it holds the view that the Geneva Agreement has to do with what they claim to be a ‘territorial dispute’.
As far as Guyana’s application to the Court is concerned, it is the validity and binding nature of the award that it asked the Court to pronounce on, not the land boundaries between the two countries. At least not yet. In any event, the Court refrained from pronouncing on such matters. Now that it decided it has jurisdiction to pronounce on the question of the Arbitral Award the ball is now in Guyana’s court to take its case to another level.
From what I have read nothing of substance was handed by the Court to Venezuela.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
