Guyana’s parliament set guidelines on maritime delimitation
The issue of Essequibo continues unsolved (Photo: AP)Western Hemisphere
Guyana's government is getting ready to enact the Maritime Zones Bill 2009 -already approved by the Parliament- the content of which untowardly affects Venezuelan interests in the area.
The legal instrument set the guidelines on marine and submarine limits under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Guyana is a party, but not Venezuela.
According to Guyana's Minister of Foreign Affairs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, the bill tries "to safeguard the rights of Guyana over 200 miles of exclusive economic zone."
Under clause 35 of the law, "delimitation of the boundaries of territorial seas located between any States opposed or adjacent to Guyana, will be agreed between Guyana and said State; in the absence of an agreed upon solution, neither State is authorized to extend its territorial waters beyond the so-called midline."
In this regard, Venezuela's National Academy of Engineering and Habitat, in a newsletter, is certain that the proposal refers to "agreeing with Venezuela, because definition of (Guyana's) borders with Suriname was possible upon the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2007."
Delimitation of marine and submarine waters with Guyana is a pending task, because Venezuela insists on claiming the land portion to the west of river Essequibo, and under said law, Guyana sets guidelines to establish its maritime boundaries without taking into account the Venezuelan claim.
Further, the projection of the so-called midline harms Venezuela, because the outline of the geo-morphological inclination favors Guyana.
Changing schemes
Clause 37 of the bill states that any disputes that may arise for failure to reach an agreement on delimitation between the parties will be settled under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The so-called Convention sets forth in article 286 that in the event of not reaching a bilateral agreement, "any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention shall, where no settlement has been reached by recourse to section 1, be submitted at the request of any party to the dispute to the court or tribunal having jurisdiction under this section."
This runs counter to the spirit of the Geneva Agreement executed on February 16, 1966, which states as an objective "satisfactory solutions for the practical settlement of the controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom which has arisen as the result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela is null and void."
Under international law, a practical settlement allows for political solutions, but the Maritime Zones Bill 2009 paves the way to resort to another jurisdiction, such as an international court, upon the decision of either party, not by common consent.
According to the Guyana Times, in its edition of August 11, the legal instrument will also legislate on territorial sea, internal waters, innocent passage, continental shelf, exclusive economic zone, maritime delimitation and geographical charts and coordinates, among other issues of interest for Venezuela.
Sources of the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that they have not taken a stance yet on the law because it has not been enacted. However, in the event of being enacted, it will be refused by the Venezuelan government by diplomatic means.
rtheis@eluniversal.com
Translated by Conchita Delgado
http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/09/08/en_pol_esp_guyanas-law-adverse_08A4443051.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment