Topic: 2024-The Situation in Guyana
Country: Slovenia
Delegate Name: Ava Tate
The Republic of Slovenia is deeply aware of the importance of ensuring relations are solely diplomatic. Slovenia acknowledges that the border dispute between The Co-operational Republic of Guyana and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela should be addressed, for the sake of preventing any potential armed conflict. As a sovereign nation, committed to fostering a peaceful international community, Slovenia pledges to remain neutral, and to work to reach a fair, and nonviolent resolution, in which the desires of all parties are accounted for.
Slovenia is all too familiar with the troubles of territorial disputes. Slovenia found resolvement in our dispute, while remaining devoted to the upholding of international law. In 2009 Slovenia, alongside the Republic of Croatia, submitted an arbitration agreement, with regards to ownership of The Bay of Piran. Notably, article 7 of the agreement states ¨the award of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be binding on the Parties and shall constitute a definitive settlement of the dispute. […] Parties shall take all necessary steps to implement the award¨. Both parties are members of the UN. These means of resolving the dispute were thus most practical, and reaffirming to the effectiveness of international law. Slovenia sees the extent to which our past dispute with the Croatia resembles that of Guyana and Venezuela; and furthermore, believes that the previously noted articles are applicable to the situation at hand.
With the vast discoveries of valuable oil in the disputed area of Essequibo’s shore, tensions are undeniably high. Venezuela claims themselves victims of land theft, as in 1899 the boundaries of Guyana, previously a British Colony, were decided by arbitrators in the Paris Arbitral Award. With Guyana acquiring independence in 1966 the question on ownership of the Essequibo was renewed. The Geneva agreement between the UK, Guyana and Venezuela, left the area as it was. Notably to Slovenia, article 4 of the treaty states that ¨If, within three months of receiving the final report, the Government of Guyana and the Government of Venezuela should not have reached agreement regarding the choice of one of the means of settlement provided in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, they shall refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agree or, failing agreement on this point, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.¨
The secretary general referred to the ICJ. In 2018 Guyana’s jurisdiction over the land was confirmed. In 2023 after a Venezuelan referendum the court stated ¨Pending a final decision in the case, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela shall refrain from taking any action which would modify the situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute,whereby the Co-operative Republic of Guyana administers and exercises control over that area. Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.¨
With regard to the previous statements, Slovenia strongly urges that the UN stand by the conclusions made by the court for the time being, thereby honoring and standing by article 33 of the UN charter, stating ¨The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.¨ Furthermore, as a devoted member of the European Union, Slovenia stands by the statement given by High Representative/Vice-President Borrell i Fontelles on behalf of the European Commission ¨ The EU underlines the importance of a peaceful and diplomatic solution in accordance with international law and the multilateral framework. Any escalation can put the stability of the region at risk and has to be avoided.¨
Conclusively, Slovenia encourages this matter to be resolved through the Hague Based permanent court of Arbitration as our past dispute was. As upholders of international law and order, the court can address the situation in a fair manner, of which both parties can recieve some satisfaction. Futhermore, we urge both parties to sign arbitration agreements, as Slovenia and Croatia did in 2009. As firm believers in the effectiveness of international law and diplomatic means of communications, we believe this can be most practical for attaining a non-violent and unbiased resolution that both parties can accept. As both parties are members of the UN, if they truly consider themselves believers and upholders of international law, peace, and diplomacy, this resolution should be executed.
Works Cited
CANO, REGINA GARCIA, and DÁNICA COTO. “Tensions are soaring between Guyana and Venezuela over a territorial dispute. Here’s what to know.” AP News, 9 December 2023, https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-guyana-essequibo-territory-dispute-maduro-referendum-d956cc4d5d2a70e3a1e762b744e397de. Accessed 18 November 2024.
“Cases.” Cases | PCA-CPA, https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/3/. Accessed 18 November 2024.
“Chapter VI: Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Articles 33-38) | United Nations.” the United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-6. Accessed 18 November 2024.
Goitom, Hanibal. “FALQs: Guyana-Venezuela Territorial Dispute | In Custodia Legis.” Library of Congress Blogs, 8 January 2024, https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2024/01/falqs-guyana-venezuela-territorial-dispute/. Accessed 18 November 2024.
Jozwiak, Rikard. “Court Rules In Favor Of Slovenia In Sea Border Dispute; Croatia Rejects Decision.” Radio Free Europe, https://www.rferl.org/a/slovenia-croatia-sea-border-dispute-hague-ruling-piran/28586589.html. Accessed 19 November 2024.
“Parliamentary question – E-003575/2023(ASW).” European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-003575-ASW_EN.html
