President Irfaan Ali has rejected the most recent declaration by Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro which once again falsely claims Essequibo as part of his country’s territory.
“On January 7th, the President of Venezuela…issued a decree claiming for Venezuela sovereignty and exclusive sovereign rights in the waters and seabed adjacent to Guyana’s coast, west of the Essequibo River [however] sovereignty over this coast, and the land territory to which it is attached, were awarded to Guyana in the 1899 Arbitral Award,” Ali reminded in an address to the nation yesterday.
In response to Maduro’s action, Guyana has summoned the Officer-in-Charge of the Venezuelan Embassy in Georgetown to a meeting and alerted the International Community, including the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Americas, of the danger to international peace and security that is being threatened by last Thursday’s decree, which violates fundamental principles of international law.
“The Officer-in-Charge has been told to convey to the Venezuelan authorities in Caracas, that, in accordance with international law, and is assertion of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, Guyana rejects entirely the decree issued by President Maduro,” Ali shared.
The President went on to characterize Maduro’s statement as a “legal nullity,” which will be respected by no state, least of all Guyana.
He explained that by decreeing that the seas adjacent to Essequibo belong to Venezuela, Maduro violated at least two fundamental principles of international law.
“The first violation is that no State can unilaterally determine its international boundaries, whether they are land boundaries or maritime boundaries. The fixing of an international boundary under international law can only result from an agreement between neighbouring States, or a binding determination by an international court or arbitral tribunal,” Ali explained.
He went on to remind that under well-established rules of international law, there is a fundamental principle that “the land dominates the sea” and, therefore, sovereignty and sovereign rights in the sea and seabed emanate from title to the land that forms the coast to which those seas and seabed are adjacent and since Guyana is sovereign over the coast west of the Essequibo River, as far as Punta Playa, it follows, consequently, that only Guyana can enjoy sovereignty and exclusive sovereign rights over the adjacent sea and seabed.
Failing to acknowledge this doctrine was Maduro’s second violation.
Ali stressed that sovereignty over the land territory is precisely the issue that is before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and which, on 18 December 2020, the Court decided to resolve.
“Guyana is confident that the Court will resolve the issue in its favour, and that this will necessarily also settle the issue of maritime rights in the adjacent sea and seabed. But, under international law, this is now for the International Court of Justice to decide,” he said.
The President made the address in response to the announcement by the Venezuelan National Assembly that a Special Commission has been created for the “defense of the Guayana Esequiba Territory and Territorial Sovereignty”
The Commission is expected to lend legislative support to the academic and legal efforts which are part of the Bolivarian Republic’s “national movement in defense of the Essequibo territory”. It will also support Maduro’s attempt to resume negotiations as a means to resolve the controversy.
In thanking the newly convened National Assembly for their support, Maduro declared that Essequibo belongs to the Venezuelan men and women and promised to reclaim the area.
The Venezuelan Head of State has also written to the Secretary General asking that he urgently restart negotiations under the auspices of the Geneva Agreement.
“We believe that now more than ever it is necessary to count on your good will, with your good offices in the broadest sense possible to restart, with the urgency that this controversy merits, the direct talks between Guyana and Venezuela, with the aim of advancing towards a peaceful and beneficial understanding to both parties,” his letter reads.
Guyana, however, has moved on from the Secretary General and now maintains that it will continue on the path of peaceful resolution of this matter in keeping with international law and the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Though Maduro’s administration has rejected this jurisdiction, Ali reminded that under international law, the Court’s decision is final and legally binding on both Guyana and Venezuela.
“It has long been a fundamental principle of international law that an international court, including the ICJ, has the competence to determine its own jurisdiction, as the ICJ did on December 18th, 2020. [Additionally] the United Nations Charter obligates all Member States to comply with their obligations under international law, including as determined by the ICJ [therefore] Venezuela does not have the “right” to “reject” the Court’s binding decision,” he said.
While Ali has expressed the hope that Venezuela will participate in the case currently before the Court he repeatedly stressed that should Venezuela choose to boycott the ICJ’s proceedings, it will not deter nor delay the Court from adjudicating the case.
“The rules of the Court expressly provide that the deliberate absence of one of the parties shall not prevent it from deciding a case,” he stated while correcting another piece of misinformation.
Contrary to a claim by the Bolivarian Republic the Court has not set a substantive hearing without granting it sufficient time to prepare rather the January 15 case management meeting will allow each party to indicate how much time would be required for the preparation and submission of the Memorial of Guyana and the Counter-Memorial of Venezuela.
The ICJ last month ruled that it has jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award on the frontier between Guyana and Venezuela in what was seen as a major victory for this country in its bid to definitively settle a decades-old controversy. The Court – the principal judicial organ of the United Nations – also declared that it could address the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary controversy between the two territories.
The decision, which was delivered by the President of the ICJ, Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, is based on the text, the object and purpose of the February 17th 1966 Geneva Agreement, which aimed to address the controversy over the award, as well as the circumstances surrounding the agreement’s conclusion. Specifically, the Court, by a majority of 12 votes to four, found that “by conferring on the Secretary-General [via the Geneva Agreement] the authority to choose the appropriate means of settlement of their controversy, including the possibility of recourse to judicial settlement by the International Court of Justice, Guyana and Venezuela consented to its jurisdiction.” It was, however, unanimously decided that the ICJ – also known as the World Court – does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claims arising from events that occurred after the signature of the Geneva Agreement. Such events include the occupation of the eastern half of the Island of Ankoko, in the Cuyuni River several months after its conclusion.
