An international law expert stated on January 5, 2023, that if the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decides to uphold the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award regarding the border between the neighboring South American countries, there is a chance that Guyana and Venezuela will be able to jointly share or exploit their shared oil reserves.
The sharing of oil reserves and the proceeds from cross-border oil wells would largely depend on the two countries having cordial relations and conducting scientific analysis, according to Dr. Alicia Elias-Roberts, dean of the University of the West Indies Faculty of Law, at a symposium titled “Guyana v Venezuela Border Controversy: A Legal Perspective,” which was organized by the law firm Hughes, Fields, and Stoby.
- Advertisement -
stated Dr. Elias-Roberts, who attended the panel in her role, “If there is any potential for friendly relations and compromise with how you delimit the borders, how you share…If you have reservoirs that straddle the territories; to document the resources properly …so there is the possibility if you have the proper data to meet with them on that front and then we have a different relation in the future so that would be a utopian dream.” She was quite certain Venezuela would not abide by the ruling of the ICJ.
A natural gas utilization agreement between Trinidad & Tobago and Venezuela stipulated that the US had to give authorization to use the hydrocarbon from the Dragon field. Earlier in her talk, Dr. Elias-Roberts asked if Guyana had information on the region’s geology, if the reservoir crossed both countries, what Venezuela’s legal borders would be, and if Guyana intended to cooperate with development or sign a use agreement even if the border dispute went unresolved.
Mr. Neville Bissember, Senior Lecturer in the Law Department at the University of Guyana, pointed out that should Venezuela decline to follow an ICJ ruling on the grounds that it does not recognize the authority of that United Nations (UN) court, the UN Charter expressly requires member states to respect the court’s rulings or face action from the UN Security Council (UNSC) to enforce the court’s decisions.
Mr. Bissember stated that Guyana would need to rely not just on the UNSC but also on its own diplomatic initiatives, citing China’s mid-December declaration that it respects boundaries as an example, “saying things in our favor”. According to him, Venezuela has allocated a significant sum of money for research in the 2024 National Budget. “it might be a positive sign that that they are actually going to come to the court and defend their position.” Concerning the possibility that Venezuela may reject the ruling of the International Court of Justice, he stated that the South American country was in a precarious position and could not function like the US or Russia, ignoring the UNSC. “Venezuela has powerful friends in the Security Council but so do we,” He described the enthusiastic gathering at Cara Lodge.
He was optimistic that the International Court of Justice would provide its ruling before Guyana’s non-permanent UNSC membership expires in 2025.
Speaking from the floor, Mr. Carl Greenidge, the Guyana representative in the International Court of Justice lawsuit over the legality of the 1899 Arbitral Award, made a powerful plea for his nation to “redouble” its diplomatic and public relations endeavors.
“I don’t think we take this matter seriously enough. You have to invest more resources- human and financial resources- in both PR (public relations) and the diplomatic offensive as an alternative to military action. We have to do a lot more,” He stated. Particularly, Mr. Greenidge advised Guyana to take up diplomatic and political measures in response to Venezuela’s intentions to join the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
“Venezuela, itself, is seeking entry into the BRICs. Are we working on that grouping? We have to work on them so that everybody is aware that here is a lawbreaker, here is a State that has no respect for agreements that have been signed…,” he noted.
Former Guyana ambassador Mr. Bissember concurred with Venezuela’s view that the Geneva Agreement should serve as the cornerstone for a peaceful resolution of the border dispute. The UN Secretary-General had submitted the case to the ICJ following increased mediation following that Agreement.
“Don’t worry with the noise you hear from Caracas,” he said. As the three-year-old Chair of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, which upholds the UN Charter as a code of conduct that standard uses for the sovereign equality of States, self-determination, and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, and refraining from the threat of using force, he stopped short of accusing Venezuela of applying double standards by engaging in “jingoism” against Guyana and other states. “The same people who want to invade in Guyana… and they are calling us the aggressor,” he noted.
