Venezuela tells World Court that Guyana’s border case is inadmissible because Britain is not a party

Last Updated on Thursday, 17 November 2022, 13:20 by Denis Chabrol

Venezuela on Wednesday said the International Court of Justice (ICJ) could not hear Guyana’s case that the 1899 Arbitral Award with that Spanish-speaking western neighbour is a full, final and perfect settlement of the land boundary between the two South American nations because Britain is not a party to the proceedings.

Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez told the ICJ in The Hague that her country maintained that the ICJ does not jurisdiction to entertain the case but at the same time insisted that that United Nations (UN) juridical body should find that Guyana’s case should be deemed in admissible. She maintained that the 1966 Geneva Agreement provides for an “amicable solution” to the dispute after the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award. “We submit that this court would not be in a position to resolve Guyana’s application because the United Kingdom, an indispensable party to settle such a matter of the dispute requested by Guyana is not participating,” she told the judges.

She dated back possession of the Guayana Essequibo to 1777 and in 1825  the UK recognised Gran Colombia, which included Guayana Essequibo, as part of Venezuela. “The United Kingdom never had title over the territory over Guayana Essequibo,” she said.  She accused the UK of shifting the boundary unilaterally throughout the 19th century by asserting new land rights reflected in “doctored maps containing falsified border lines in its favour” to voraciously govern gold mines and other natural resources. Ms Rodriguez said the UK had stated that the new border line had not been subjected to negotiation and any action could be greeted with the use of force.

The  Venezuelan Vice President also recalled engaging the United States, as Venezuela’s negotiator, had seen Britain, the then largest imperial power, clashing with another emerging world power.

She said in 2015, the same year that ExxonMobil discovered oil,  Guyana abandoned the United Nations mediation process.

Appearing before the ICJ for Venezuela was Professor of International Law, University of Potsdam, Andreas Zimmermann who noted that that Court had only addressed and decided that it had jurisdiction in 2018. “. In that regard, let me start reiterating that Venezuela continues to strongly believe that the December 2020 Judgment was wrongly decided, and that Guyana’s Application is not only inadmissible, but that the Court also lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case in the first place,” he said.

Professor of International Law, University of Glasgow, academic member of Matrix Chambers, London Christian Tams said the UK remains an interested party. He said the arbitration award was mired in controversy because Venezuela complained of fraudulent British conduct. “Venezuela’s argument is straightforward. In order to settle this dispute, the Court will, as a prerequisite, have to rule on the United Kingdom’s conduct,’ he added.

Mr Tams said Guyana knows that in order to uphold the validity of the Award, it has to defend the United Kingdom against Venezuela’s charges. “Madam President, with all due respect to our colleagues, it seems to me that this attempt to read the United Kingdom out of the history is getting desperate. It is desperate because if a tribunal is corrupt, someone must have corrupted it. Desperate because by definition you cannot collude on your own. And desperate also because to present its clean take on the British-Venezuelan controversy over the Arbitral Award, Guyana has to erase from the record Venezuela’s very real charges of fraud, of deceit — which were charges made against the United Kingdom,” he said.

Professor Carlos Espósito, in contending that there was a conspiracy by the British, referred to letters from Sir Richard Webster, Britain’s senior counsel, to Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, and to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, the Colonial Minister of Great Britain.
This correspondence indicates a fraudulent conduct between party lawyers and, in Webster’s own words, “our arbitrators”