Venezuela’s objections in border controversy case short on facts
Nov 25, 2022 --- Source --- https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...case-short-on-facts/
– Greenidge urges ICJ to reject claims
Kaieteur News – Carl Greenidge , Guyana ‘s Co-Agent and Advisor on borders told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Tuesday, that Venezuela’s preliminary objections to the case is long on rhetoric but short on facts.
Carl Greenidge, Guyana‘s Co-Agent and Advisor on borders.
The ICJ last week held public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Venezuela in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899 (Guyana v Venezuela). During the conclusion of the preliminary hearing at the Hague-based ICJ, Greenidge spoke of how Venezuela’s has absolutely failed to articulate proper grounds for its reason for asking the court to strike down Guyana’s case.
He said that one thing is abundantly clear, “Venezuela really does not want this court to determine the merits of Guyana’s claims. He said it was clear to the court throughout the hearing, Venezuela’s arguments in support of its preliminary objections, have been rather long on allegations and rhetoric and somewhat short on substance.”
“Why, one might ask, is that the case? Is it that Venezuela is concerned that a judgment in the case will, in its very essence, involve a determination of the rights of the UK? Or is it because Venezuela recognises that the legal and factual merits of Guyana’s claims are overwhelming and a hearing will yield only one possible outcome?” Greenidge questioned.
During his presentation, Greenidge noted that Venezuela is more interested in continuing to hold onto a falsehood, rather than a final and legal pronouncement on the truth. Further, during his presentation, Greenidge also reaffirmed that Guyana has no interest in negotiating a conclusion of the border controversy, but expects the legal one before the ICJ. Greenidge in his argument also took the opportunity to remind the court that it had earlier reached the conclusion that it has jurisdiction in hearing the case in respect of Guyana’s claim concerning the validity of the 1899 arbitral award and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela.
He noted that in reaching that decision the court upheld another careful and independent decision, namely the decision of the Secretary General of the UN made in 2018, to entrust the World Court with the responsibility for resolving the controversy between Guyana and Venezuela, regarding the validity of the 1899 award and the settlement of the parties land boundary dispute.
Greenidge added that, “the court would be well aware this is a long standing issue which has stubbornly defied resolution for more than half a century. It has cast a long and menacing shadow over Guyana’s security and development throughout its existence as a sovereign state, a shadow rooted in Venezuela’s efforts to erase the long standing land boundary between our two countries and make claim to nearly three-quarters of Guyana’s land territory, the resolution of this dispute is therefore no less than existential for Guyana.”
As such, he said, “Guyana since its emergence as a Sovereign State in 1966 has been steadfast in its commitment to international law. Instead of proceeding to determine the merits of Guyana’s claim, Venezuela urges the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction.”
“By making that argument, Venezuela once again invites the court to condemn the parties to perpetual deadlock and the indefinite continuation of a controversy which has blighted their relations for the entirety of Guyana’s existence as a sovereign state,” Greenidge added.
(Rehanna Ramsay)
