During the closing arguments by the Guyana team in Guyana’s case against Venezuela at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Guyana’s Counsel Professor Pierre d’Argent on Friday told the Court that Venezuela’s main point, which it advanced before the Court on Tuesday, was already frowned upon by the very C ourt.
Guyana wants the International Court to confirm the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award fixing the land boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, which the parties recognise as the international boundary between them for over 60 years.
But when the Counsel for Venezuela addressed the Court on Tuesday, it was argued that the 1966 Geneva agreement superseded the 1899 award.
But professor D’Argent rejected that contention, telling the Court that Venezuela appears to be suffering from amnesia regarding its own legal position. He said it has long been the contention of Caracas that the 1899 award is central to the controversy.
“There is no basis, no basis for Venezuela’s assertion that the Geneva agreement does not covers the question of the validity of the award and that this question is not part of the dispute covered by that agreement. Venezuela has submitted this claim to the court has expressly rejected it,” Professor D’Argent noted in his reply.
He said because the Court had ruled on the matter, the res judicata effect kicks in, which means trying to litigate a case that has already been ruled upon.
According to the Counsel, while Venezuela’s position remains that the Geneva agreement addresses the controversy in its totality, Guyana’s position is that the agreement governs the parties’ relationships regarding Venezuela’s claim that the award is null and void.
“It is precisely because the Geneva agreement governs the relationship between the parties with regard to this dispute that we are before the court, it still has been held with the force of res judicata. Furthermore, the court considered that Guyana’s right to the sovereignty, over the territory in question is plausible….So, how could the court Could make such a finding if the Geneva agreement had the effect claimed by Venezuela?,” Professor D’Argent questioned.
Professor D’Argent said Venezuela has deliberately misinterpret the intent of the Geneva agreement.
He said Venezuela’s counsel have contradicted majority of that country’s historical position on the Geneva agreement and ventured into new territory on the case, which he said could be interpreted as a last-ditch effort by Venezuela.
He said it was incorrect for Venezuela to argue that the Court cannot affirm the award. This he said, would mean that the controversy will to be left to fester.
“So it is not only the Geneva agreement that must be read but the 2020 judgement that is so despise by Venezuela. Finally, does that judgement failed to identity the real issue of this case? Absolutely not,” Professor D’Argent noted.
On two occasions since the case was filed, the ICJ has confirmed its jurisdiction hear and determine the matter.