Ramkarran purports to answers questions gov’t still to address
Sunday , October 25 2015, Citizen’s Report, Source
THERE can be “little doubt” that the International Court of Jurists (ICJ) does have jurisdiction to preside over a juridical settlement of the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy, both countries having agreed to a juridical settlement and having given the authority to the Secretary General of the United Nation (UN) to decide, according to former House Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran.
However, an agreement from both countries is still to be had. While the UN is mediating a resolution of the matter, there has been no official report on its meeting with top government officials from both countries as yet, other than to say that the outcomes of the meetings reflected satisfactory progress.
“The provisions (of the Geneva Agreement) provide for a “judicial settlement” to be chosen by the Secretary General. There can be little doubt, therefore, that notwithstanding the dozens of complex cases which deal with the jurisdiction of the ICJ, that it does indeed have jurisdiction, both countries having agreed to a judicial settlement and having given the authority to the Secretary General of the UN to decide,” Ramkarran said his weekly column on his blog, Conversation Tree.
Ramkarran’s comments follow questions on the very matter from Opposition Leader, Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, at his last news conference, held last Friday at Freedom House, Robb Street.
Jagdeo’s questions included:
• Will the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, suggest a juridical settlement to both Guyana and Venezuela?
• Is a juridical settlement provided for by under the UN Charter?
• Does ICJ have authority to preside over a juridical settlement?
• If Venezuela does not agree to a juridical settlement, can Guyana advance such a case on its own?
While there has been no official response from the Ministry of the Presidency on the matter, Ramkarran’s commentary purports to answer all these in the affirmative.
Notably, however, while Ramkarran has seeming answered in the affirmative, Venezuela has to agree for the matter to be pursued.
In addition to Ramkarran addressing these questions, he goes on to add that before the UN Head chooses a judicial settlement in the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy, in which case he will refer the matter to the International Commission of Jurists, he must satisfy himself that the ICJ has jurisdiction.
Ramkarran said that Article 36 of the ICJ’s Statute gives it jurisdiction over “all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.”
He contends too that the Geneva Agreement is a treaty, certainly within the contemplation of the ICJ’s Article 36.
As such, the former House Speaker concluded that it is left for the UN Secretary General to act. “The ball is now in the Secretary General’s court and Guyana must keep up the pressure for him to act,” he said.
