After declaring that it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in adjudicating the border controversy between itself and Guyana, Venezuela has now submitted preliminary objections to the admissibility of the case before the Court.
This information was relayed yesterday in a press release from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation which accused Caracas of attempting to delay the conclusion of the case. The ministry related that the Registrar of the ICJ advised of Venezuela’s submission regarding the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela).
Guyana’s Foreign Ministry said that it recognises that the Rules of Procedure of the ICJ allow for such an objection to be lodged and considered by the Court, and that, as a consequence, the proceedings on the merits of the case are suspended until the Court rules on the preliminary objections. It added that the Government will submit its observations with dispatch as soon as the Court advises of the time by which it expects to receive them.
Additionally, the Ministry said that it has always adhered to the rule of international law and the rules and procedures of the ICJ with regard to its case and pledged to continue doing so.
“Observing that Venezuela had previously not recognized the jurisdiction of the Court to consider the case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation also notes that, by submitting an objection at this advanced stage of the proceedings before the ICJ, the Venezuelan Government is patently engaging in an effort to delay the Court’s final judgment on the merits of the case.
“Nonetheless, by its action, the Venezuelan government now joins the judicial process which Guyana had always urged it to do-a step that Guyana welcomes, confident of the validity of its position on the merits of the case,” the Ministry said in a statement.
During his Independence Day address, last month, President Irfaan Ali had said that Guyana will not abandon the judicial path it has undertaken in its border controversy with Venezuela.
“Independence imposes on us the duty to safeguard Guyana’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty. On these issues, Guyanese must broker no division. We must continue to stand united in defending our motherland from external fronts.
We will continue to marshal the best diplomatic efforts necessary to ensure respect for all our territorial space. We do not intend to deviate from the judicial path, which has been taken to address the controversy with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Our path to peace is paved with good intentions,” Ali had said.
In March 2018, Guyana filed its application with the ICJ to confirm the validity and binding effect of the Arbitral Award of 1899 on the boundary between the two countries and the subsequent 1905 agreement, following the decision by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to choose the ICJ as the next means of resolving the controversy which stems from Venezuela’s contention that the award was null and void.
In its Application of March 29 before the ICJ, Guyana requested that the Court adjudge and declare that:
“(a) The 1899 Award is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela, and the boundary established by that Award and the 1905 Agreement is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela;
(b) Guyana enjoys full sovereignty over the territory between the Essequibo River and the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement, and Venezuela enjoys full sovereignty over the territory west of that boundary; Guyana and Venezuela are under an obligation to fully respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in accordance with the boundary established by the 1899 Award and the 1905 Agreement;
(c) Venezuela shall immediately withdraw from and cease its occupation of the eastern half of the Island of Ankoko, and each and every other territory which is recognized as Guyana’s sovereign territory in accordance with the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement;
(d) Venezuela shall refrain from threatening or using force against any person and/or company licensed by Guyana or engage in economic or commercial activity in Guyanese territory as determined by the 1899 Award and 1905 Agreement, or in any maritime areas appurtenant to such territory over which Guyana has sovereignty or exercises sovereign rights, and shall not interfere with any Guyanese or Guyanese-authorised activities in those areas;
(e) Venezuela is internationally responsible for violations of Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights, and for all injuries suffered by Guyana as a consequence.”
Guyana’s recourse to the ICJ came after decades of stalemate in its border controversy with Venezuela. While Venezuela had said it was not participating in the process, it was a part of the case management process. Its Vice President Delcy Rodríguez had told the ICJ that her country’s participation was “as a courtesy, not as a party in this procedure.”
Venezuela had reiterated its historical position of non-recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case and highlighted the validity of the 1966 Geneva Agreement to reach a practical and mutually satisfactory settlement for the parties, through friendly negotiations.
Despite the ruling by the ICJ that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, Venezuela has taken the position that there is no basis of jurisdiction for this case since it has never given its consent.
In March of this year, Guyana submitted its Memorial on the Merits of its border controversy Case against Venezuela – as required by the Court following its decision of 18 December 2020 confirming its jurisdiction to decide the merits of Guyana’s claims.
“Guyana seeks from the Court a decision that the Arbitral Award of 1899 determining the boundary is valid and binding upon Guyana and Venezuela, and that the boundary established by that Award and the 1905 Agreement demarcating it, is the lawful boundary between Guyana and Venezuela. The Court has agreed in its earlier decision that it has jurisdiction to do so. Guyana now looks to the Court’s judicial process and its settlement of the matter under the rule of law”, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had said in a statement following the submission.
