Dear Editor,
Guyana’s Agent in the border case with Venezuela, former Foreign Minister Carl Greenidge, has helpfully provided useful information on the next steps in the World Court and about the dedicated lawyers and national advisory team working on this. The World Court will, on 15 January, inform the parties about timelines for the next steps in the handling of the case.
This case involves the fate of two-thirds of Guyana’s national territory and it is legitimate to ask whether the Guyanese people, Parliament, and the legal ministry are sufficiently informed or engaged in this matter of vital national interest. As one of the Judges in the case, Judge Gevorgian, aptly commented in para. 2 of his Opinion “the case involves national interests of the highest order such as rights to large amounts of territory.”
Should the Foreign Ministry publish an information paper for the general public? Should Parliament be briefed and discuss the case before 15 January? Should the Office of the Attorney-General be involved in the case, which has considerable legal complexities, as will be seen presently.
As Judge Tomka stated in paragraph 3 of his Declaration, the issue of the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award is part and parcel of the controversy which, as Article I of the Geneva Agreement confirms, “has arisen as the result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela is null and void.” Judge Tomka goes on to note, in paragraph 6, that “By upholding its jurisdiction the Court provides an opportunity for [Venezuela] to substantiate its contention that the 1899 Award is null and void.”
Judge Tomka, in paragraph 7 of his Declaration, adds the following important point: “It is important for the Parties to understand that, should the 1899 Award be declared null and void by the Court, as argued by Venezuela, the Court will be in need of further submissions, in the form of evidence and arguments about the course of the land boundary, in order for it to fully resolve the ‘controversy’ “.
Paragraph 86 of the Judgment of the World Court has raised eyebrows within and outside the Court. There, the Court “observes that in this case, a judicial decision declaring the 1899 Arbitral Award to be null and void without delimiting the boundary between the Parties might not lead to the definitive resolution of the controversy, which would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Geneva Agreement. Judge Robinson of Jamaica dissented to this in his Declaration: “I respectfully disagree with the inclusion of paragraph 86 of the Judgment. In my view, the cautionary note sounded by the paragraph is not warranted in the circumstances of the case.” There is no doubt that one is treading heavy waters here.
Judge Bennouna, in paragraph 9 of his Dissenting Opinion, commented as follows on paragraph 86 of the Court’s decision: “In this case…the Court has been seised of a specific dispute which arose in 1962, concerning the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October, 1899, and not of another quite distinct dispute, concerning the delimitation of the land boundary between two States which had arisen in the nineteenth century and was settled with res judicata effect by the Arbitral Award of 3 October, 1899.”
Judge Bennouna goes on to say: “And even if the Court were to find that the 1899 Award was invalid, it would be for the two Parties, in any event, to draw the necessary conditions as to the state of their border and the dispute that would still exist between them on that subject. And it is for them, if necessary, to choose the means of peaceful settlement of such a dispute.” Judge Bennouna insists, in paragraph 10 of his Dissenting Opinion that “the only dispute at issue here, as provided by the Geneva Agreement, [is] that concerning the validity of the Arbitral Award.”
Judge Gevorgian, in paragraph 28 of his Dissenting Opinion, comments on the implications of the Court’s holding that it has jurisdiction over the question of ‘the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute’ between Guyana and Venezuela: “This would be a decision of potentially enormous significance for the Parties…”
There are issues of the vital national interests of Guyana that require public discussion, Parliamentary engagement, and the involvement of the legal arm of the Government. Guyana must now be ready to submit pleading on issues including the following: (i) the validity of the Arbitral Award of 3 October, 1899; (ii) the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the two counties. (iii) if needed, “evidence and arguments about the course of the land boundary, in order for it to fully resolve the ‘controversy’ “.
With the greatest respect to everyone concerned, the presentation of these issues cannot be left solely to well-meaning, hired lawyers or a local Advisory Committee. Parliament, the legal arm of government, and the people must be involved in shaping these issues involving the future of two thirds of the country. It surely is patriotic to point this out.
Yours faithfully,
Bertrand Ramcharan
