We hope the Guyana government seek assistance from knowledgeable individuals like Ramcharan and other countries in this matter, or Guyana might lose Essequibo to Venezuela.

Why is this a 'territorial dispute', when this matter was settled in 1899 ?   

@Tola posted:

We hope the Guyana government seek assistance from knowledgeable individuals like Ramcharan and other countries in this matter, or Guyana might lose Essequibo to Venezuela.

Why is this a 'territorial dispute', when this matter was settled in 1899 ?   

Dr. Ramcharan gives a great explanation ,there is no territorial dispute.

The territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela on the boundary Treaty signed in October 1899 supersedes all previous agreements on the matter.

Part of the 1899 Treaty decision ...

Source - https://legal.un.org/riaa/case...l_XXVIII/331-340.pdf

  And whereas the said Arbitrators have duly entered upon the said Arbitration, and have duly heard and considered the oral and written arguments of the Counsel representing respectively Her Majesty the Queen and the United States of Venezuela, and have impartially and carefully examined the questions laid before them, and have investigated and ascertained the extent of the territories belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed by the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain respectively at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony of British Guiana:

  Now we, the undersigned Arbitrators, do hereby make and publish our decision, determination, and award of, upon, and concerning the questions submitted to us by the said Treaty of Arbitration, finally decide, award, and determine that the boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela is as follows: —

  Starting from the coast at Point Playa, the line of boundary shall run in a straight line to the River Barima at its junction with the River Mururuma, and thence along the mid-stream of the latter river to its source, and from that point to the junction of the River Haiowa with the Amakuru, and thence along the mid-stream of the Amakuru to its source in the Imataka Ridge, and thence in a south-westerly direction along the highest ridge of the spur of the Imataka Mountains to the highest point of the main range of such Imataka Mountains opposite to the source of the Barima, and thence along the summit of the main ridge in a south-easterly direction of the Imataka Mountains to the source of the Acarabisi, and thence along the mid-stream of the Acarabisi to the Cuyuni, and thence along the northern bank of the River Cuyuni westward to its junction with the Wenamu, and thence following the mid-stream of the Wenamu to its westernmost source, and thence in a direct line to the summit of Mount Roraima, and from Mount Roraima to the source of the Cotinga, and along the mid-stream of that river to its junction with the Takutu, and thence along the mid-stream of the Takutu to its source, thence in a straight line to the westernmost point of the Akarai Mountains, and thence along the ridge of the Akarai Mountains to the source of the Corentin called the Cutari River:

  Provided always that the line of delimitation fixed by this Award shall be subject and without prejudice to any questions now existing, or which may arise, to be determined between the Government of Her Britannic Majesty and the Republic of Brazil, or between the latter Republic and the United States of Venezuela.

  In fixing the above delimitation, the Arbitrators consider and decide that in times of peace the Rivers Amakuru and Barima shall be open to navigation by the merchant-ships of all nations, subject to all just regulations and to the payment of light or other like dues: Provided that the dues charged by the Republic of Venezuela and the Government of the Colony of British Guiana in respect of the passage of vessels along the portions of such rivers respectively owned by them shall be charged at the same rates upon the vessels of Venezuela and Great Britain, such rates being no higher than those charged to any other nation: Provided also that no customs duties shall be chargeable either by the Republic of Venezuela or by the Colony of British Guiana in respect of goods carried on board ships, vessels, or boats passing along the said rivers; but customs duties shall only be chargeable in respect of goods landed in the territory of Venezuela or Great Britain respectively.

  Executed and published in duplicate by us in Paris, this 3rd day of October, A.D. 1899.

F. DE MARTENS.

MELVILLE WESTON FULLER.

DAVID J.BREWER.

RUSSELL OF KN.R.

HENN COLLINS.

Eh-eh, Venezuela does not understand Guyana's political representatives and reality ...

Kaieteur News Cartoon 20/2020, Dec 20, 2020 Cartoons, Features / Columnists, Source - https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...s-cartoon-20-2020-2/

Dr. Ramcharran's concern is perhaps one of semantics.  The fact is that the validity of the 1899 award and the border dispute are intertwined.  Virtually everyone has been speaking, for decades, about a border dispute, not the validity of the 1899 award.  I sought the opinion of someone well versed in international law.  That person is of the opinion that the Court's position is to Guyana's benefit ,i.e., the resolution of the  border dispute once and for all.  Contrary to Dr. Ramcharran's position Venezuela has been given nothing.  Let's see if they show up for the hearing on the substantive issue.  Guyana's case is unassailable.  With the likes of Ramphal arguing Guyana's case the outcome will definitely be in its favour.  Maybe Ramcharran could be recruited to assist with the case.

ICJ delivered careful judgment on Guyana, Venezuela border case – Int’l lawyers

Dec 23, 2020 News, Source - https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...r-case-intl-lawyers/

Kaieteur News – International lawyers who represented Guyana at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last week, have fired back at criticism from Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan, a Guyanese and former United Nations (UN) official, who reportedly said that the decision by the UN-supported World Court, to entertain the border case was reckless.

Guyanese diplomat, Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan

In a missive issued yesterday, attorneys Paul Reichler and Professor Philippe Sands, QC lauded last week’s careful court judgment by the ICJ.
The lawyers said in response to a letter by Dr. Ramcharan, which was carried in the Stabroek News that they do not understand “…Quite how that approach may be said to be “reckless” is unclear, and it may be that on carefully re-reading it, Dr. Ramcharan will come to a clearer understanding of what it has actually said.”

Professor Philippe Sands, QC

International Arbitrator, Paul Reichler

In the piece, Dr. Ramcharan was highly critical of the decision by the ICJ’s ruling that it has jurisdiction to hear the validity of the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela.

According to Ramcharan, on a closer look, there are perplexing features of the decision that warrant serious scrutiny.

“With great respect,” he said, “the decision of the Court is a reckless one.”
The first issue is how the Court framed the issue that must now be addressed in the final stage of the case, the Guyanese diplomat added.

In reply to the critique, attorneys Reichler and Sands, QC, who were on the team that defended Guyana in the border case, noted their considerable surprise at the article written by Dr. Ramcharan.

“This is all the more so,” the lawyers added, “having known Dr. Ramcharan for many years. He has expertise and experience in many areas, but the practise of the International Court of Justice is not, as far as we are aware, one of them.”

The attorneys explained that the Court was faced with a novel situation, in which its jurisdiction was premised on a decision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Both Reichler and Sands noted that the Court has ruled, by a large majority, that “it has jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Co-operative Republic of Guyana on March 29, 2018, in so far as it concerns the validity of the Arbitral Award of October 3, 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

They said that the ruling follows the careful and considered approach of the Court, as reflected in its practise.

“The Court has expressed no view on whether there is or is not a land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela. Rather, it has decided to exercise jurisdiction on the question of whether such a dispute has been subject to a “definitive settlement,” a question that turns on the validity of the Arbitral Award of 1899,” the lawyers added in the statement.

As such, the attorneys stressed that given the careful judgment “quite how that approach may be said to be “reckless” is unclear, and it may be that on carefully re-reading it, Dr. Ramcharan will come to a clearer understanding of what it has actually said.”

Further, the lawyers emphasized that having between themselves practised before the Court for more than six decades, in their view the judgment appears to be reasonable in its approach, and one that is entirely favourable to Guyana.

The attorneys said that it was an honour to represent Guyana to argue the jurisdictional issues on its behalf under the leadership of Carl Greenidge and Sir Shridath Ramphal, and accompanied by a team of distinguished international lawyers.

As a result, they held that the Court’s decision of December 18, 2020, is a historic victory for Guyana.

“It gives Guyana exactly what it has been seeking since independence in 1966, an opportunity to obtain a final and binding judgment from the world’s highest court on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, and the boundary that was fixed in accordance with it, and to confirm Guyana’s exclusive and undisputed sovereignty over the entire Essequibo Region,” the two attorneys said in the statement.

Venezuela rejects World Court decision on border

…insists on negotiating directly with Guyana

Dec 23, 2020 News, Source - https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...-decision-on-border/

Kaieteur News – Last week, the United Nation’s judicial arm, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down a key decision stating that it has jurisdiction to hear a matter in a border case Guyana filed against neighbouring Venezuela.

Venezuela president, Nicolas Maduro

Venezuela has been laying claims for years now on a large swath of mineral-rich Essequibo and Guyana’s waters.

In 2015, the Nicolas Maduro administration even drew maps claiming the waters where US-owned ExxonMobil discovered oil.
Guyana, after frustration for years using a Good Office process, filed a court case in 2018.

Venezuela has not participated in the matter.

Following the ruling last week by ICJ that it has jurisdiction, Venezuela released its own statement, rejecting the decision.

According to Venezuela’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Monday, they want to negotiate directly with Guyana.

The statement is below:

“The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has been made aware of the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), read in a hearing by video conference on December 18, 2020, in relation to the unilateral claim filed by the Cooperative Republic of Guyana against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the validity of the Arbitration Award of 1899.

In this regard, the following is reported to the national and international community:

The Geneva Agreement is the only restrictive bilateral regulation in force, applicable to settle, through friendly negotiations, the territorial dispute.

The foregoing denies the judicial route, incapable of reaching the practical and satisfactory settlement that this Treaty imposes on both parties. In that sense, Venezuela has been and is willing to engage in these friendly negotiations to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement.

By deciding that it has jurisdiction over the validity of the 1899 arbitration award based on Guyana’s unilateral claim, the ICJ commits an incomprehensible and unusual error, not only in terms of the consent not given by Venezuela to said jurisdiction, but by admitting a object of dispute other than the substantial object of the dispute, as defined by the 1966 Geneva Agreement.

With its decision, the Court not only violates its own doctrine established and sustained for decades, but also its extensive jurisprudence. Consequently, Venezuela rejects the decision of the ICJ, in perfect accordance with the arguments that it opportunely offered – from its sovereign position of not appearing – to assist with it in its duty to issue a pronouncement where the law, the principles of Law and customary law required him to declare his obvious lack of jurisdiction.

Consequently, and for the reasons set forth above, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela repudiates the ruling issued by the ICJ in the aforementioned terms, while claiming, once again, the validity of the 1966 Geneva Agreement and ratifying that it will continue to exercise their just claim, given the grotesque fraud that the Arbitration Award of 1899 implied to the detriment of their territorial integrity.

Finally, Venezuela reiterates its call for this controversy to be channeled amicably and proposes the beginning of direct negotiations with the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, in accordance with international law and on the basis of the 1966 Geneva Agreement, which mandates both parties to resolve this dispute peacefully.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela calls on all the Venezuelan people to unite around this national historical cause in the defence of their sovereign right over Guayana Esequiba (sic) and to reject a decision that is detrimental to law, history and justice.

The sun of Venezuela rises in the Essequibo.
Caracas, December 18, 2020”