A controversial determination of consent to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (at the mercy, sine die, of the decision of a third party) and a problematic competence ratione materiae: Judgment on jurisdiction of December 18, 2020 in t
Main Article Content
Abstract
The judgment of December 18, 2020 in the Arbitration Award of October 3, 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), of the International Court of Justice, declared its jurisdiction to decide the dispute over the validity of the 1899 award, which established the current border between Venezuela and Guyana. Venezuela challenges the validity of the award since 1962. The article critically analyzes the basis of jurisdiction used by the court and the determination of the scope of its competence ratione materiae based on provisions contained in the 1966 Geneva Agreement, through the which the United Kingdom (before the independence of Guyana) and Venezuela, agreed to resolve the dispute over the border between the two States.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Fuentes doctrinales
CHILD, Clifton J., “The Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Arbitration of 1899”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 44, No. 4, 1950, pp. 682-693.
FAÚNDEZ LEDESMA, Héctor, “La controversia del Esequibo y el fantasma de Federico de Marten”, Revista de Derecho Público, No. 169-170, 2022, pp. 9-20.
GROSS ESPIELL, Héctor, “Federico Martens, John Westlake y el Laudo Arbitral de 1899”, Boletín de la Academia Nacional de la Historia, Vol. 66, No. 264, 1983, pp. 1015-1045.
KOLB, Robert, The International Court of Justice, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2013.
MÄLKSOO, Lauri, “The Legacy of F.F. Martens and the Shadow of Colonialism”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2022, pp. 55-77.
MANGOLDT, Hans VON y Andreas ZIMMERMANN, “Article 53”, en Andreas Zimmermann, et al. (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice A Commentary, 2a ed., Oxford University Press, 2012.
REUTER, Paul, “La motivation et la révision des sentences arbitrales à la Conférence de la paix de la Haye (1899) et le conflit frontalier entre le Royaume-Uni et le Venezuela”, en Mélanges Offerts À Juraj Andrassy, Springer, Dordrecht, 1968.
SCHOENRICH, Otto, “The Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Dispute”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1949, pp. 523-530.
SHAW, Malcolm N., “Jurisdiction and the Season of the Court”, Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920-2015, Vol. II, 5a ed., 2015, capítulo 9, II.153.
THIRLWAY, H.W.A., “Procedural law and the International Court of Justice”, en Vaughan Lowe y Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Eds.), Fifty years of the International Court of Justice, Essays in honor of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
TOMUSCHAT, Christian, “Article 36”, en Andreas Zimmermann, et al. (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice A Commentary, 2a ed., Oxford University Press, 2012.
TORRES BERNÁRDEZ, Santiago, “Medios procesales a la disposición de las partes en el procedimiento contencioso de la Corte Internacional de Justicia”, en Cursos Euromediterráneos Bancaja de Derecho Internacional, Vol. VIII/IX, tirant lo blanch, 2004/2005.
Fuentes jurisprudenciales
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992.
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1948.
Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment, 1927, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 9.
Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2020.
Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Order of 19 June 2018, I.C.J. Reports 2018.
Order of 8 March 2021. Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial.
Order of 13 June 2022. Fixing of time-limit: Written statement of observations and submissions on preliminary objection.
“Declaration of Judge Gaja”, en Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2020.
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Gevorgian, en Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2020.
“Dissenting Opinion of Judge Bennouna”, en Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2020.
“Dissenting Opinion of Judge Abraham”, en Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2020.
“Declaration of Judge Tomka”, en Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2020.
Fuentes convencionales
Agreement to resolve the controversy over the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana. Signed at Geneva, on 17 February 1966.
Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia
Reglamento de la Corte Internacional de Justicia.