Dear Editor,
The letter of Reichler and Sands raises an issue of English and one of Arithmetic. The Court found that it has jurisdiction to entertain Guyana’s Application “in so far as it concerns the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between” the countries.
So, what do these reputedly erudite gentlemen think is the meaning of the word and? Do not one and one make two? Has not the Court taken jurisdiction over two issues, the second being “the land boundary dispute”. The Court has done this on its own volition.
In a land boundary dispute might not the Court decide on behalf of either or both sides? You are surely aware of the jurisprudence of the Court on the ‘equitable’ settlement of territorial disputes. This means each side giving up something. Have you, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, done a risk analysis of this? Might it not have been wiser to do this before diving into an empty pool?
Think, Gentlemen, Think. And at least allow that a patriot may see genuine reasons for concern here. Invectives are not helpful.
Yours faithfully,
Bertrand Ramcharan
