CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

3 October 1899- Arbitral Award: ICJ

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D: 13 JUNE 2022

Regarding the Application filed in the Registry of the Court on 29 March 2018 by the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana (hereinafter "Guyana") against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter "Venezuela") in a dispute concerning "the legal validity and binding effect of the Award regarding the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, dated 3 October 1899", the Court finds that it has jurisdiction.

Regarding the Order dated 19 June 2018, by which the Court held, pursuant to Article 79, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court of 14 April 1978 as amended on 1 February 2001, that, taking into account that Venezuela had informed the Court that, in its view, the Court manifestly lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and that it had decided not to participate in the proceedings, it was first necessary to determine the Court's jurisdiction, and that this question h

Due to the fact that Venezuela did not file a Counter-Memorial, but on 28 November 2019 it submitted a document titled "Memorandum of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on the Application filed before the International Court of Justice by the Cooperative Republic of Guyana on 29 March 2018", the Court finds that Guyana's application is admissible.

Regarding a letter dated 10 February 2020 in which Venezuela stated it had no intention of participating in the oral proceedings on the issue of the Court's jurisdiction,

Regarding the public hearing held on 30 June 2020, during which Guyana presented its oral arguments and submissions on the issue of the Court's jurisdiction,

Having regard to the Judgment dated 18 December 2020, in which the Court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the Application filed by Guyana on 29 March 2018 regarding the validity of the Arbitral Award dated 3 October 1899 and the related question of the definitive settlement of the land boundary dispute between Guyana and Venezuela, the Court grants Guyana's Application.

The Court extends the filing deadlines for Guyana's Memorial and Venezuela's Counter-Memorial on the merits from 8 March 2022 to 8 March 2023.

Regarding the Memorial of Guyana submitted within the allotted time,

Regarding a letter dated June 6, 2022 in which H.E. Ms. Delcy Elona Rodrguez Gómez, Executive Vice President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, informed the Court that the Venezuelan Government had appointed H.E.

Venezuela filed preliminary objections to the application's admissibility on 7 June 2022, and a copy of these objections was transmitted to the other party immediately.

Consequently, pursuant to Article 79bis, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court, the merits proceedings are stayed and a deadline must be set for the opposing party to submit a written statement of its observations and arguments regarding the preliminary objections.

In accordance with Practice Direction V, which states that the time limit for the presentation of such a written statement shall generally not exceed four months from the date of the filing of preliminary objections, we hereby extend this time limit to six months.

Sets the date of 7 October 2022 as the deadline for the Co-operative Republic of Guyana to submit a written statement regarding Venezuela's preliminary objections; and

Reserving judgement on the next procedure.

Done in English and French, with the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on this thirteenth day of June, twenty-two, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the Court's archives and the other two of which will be sent to the governments of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, respectively.

Guyana

v/s

Venezuela

Download order

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/guyana-v-venezuela.pdf"]

Latest Legal News