Strengths of Belize’s Case to the I.C.J.
On April tenth, 2019, Belizeans will be tasked to make one of the most important decisions of Belize’s young history. That decision to take the territorial dispute with Guatemala to the International Court of Justice would be a major milestone in this longstanding issue. But many have found themselves indecisive; as making an informed decision means taking in centuries’ worth of history on treaties, negotiations and other legal and diplomatic notes. In tonight’s report from The Hague, News Five’s Marleni Cuellar explores the strength of Belize’s case. Here’s that story.
Marleni Cuellar, Reporting
There have been many points of view on whether or not to take the dispute with Guatemala to the International Court of Justice. For those from the Government and more specifically from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Referendum Unit, the messaging has been consistent. That is: that Belize has a robust and seemingly unbeatable case to take before the courts. In his interview in The Hague, we asked Ambassador Vernon to outline these strengths.
Dylan Vernon
Dylan Vernon, Belize’s Ambassador in Belgium, Hague & EU
“Guatemala is the one that is claiming us they will have a position they will take the court if we get there and they will have to prove certain things that we on the Belize side believe that they can never prove. The three major areas that Belize has in terms of our arguments is that the British and then Belize have occupied this country from the Rio Hondo to the Sarstoon since the 1820s and we can prove it. That most importantly, this is where perhaps where the court will focus more than anything else perhaps only. The 1859 treaty defines the borders of Belize very, very clearly. It is a treaty that is recognized that stands and that cannot be disregarded and we will also use the argument when we get to the court of that of becoming an independent nation in 1981 with the support of 139 countries of the world with territorial integrity and sovereignty and when we became independent at that time it was done with the assumption that the territory that we inherited from the UK is the one we have now and clearly the United Nations Resolution is not a legally binding document and the borders of Belize are not demarcated by that resolution but we can use that arguments as one of the key arguments as to why the country that we now call Belize is ours but it will hinge on the 1859 treaty more than anything else.”
But just how valid would this 1859 treaty be in court? In truth, no one can really say until and if the case is argued in the International Court of Justice. Nonetheless, when speaking with the International Law Experts at the Leiden University, we asked them how the principles of international law would apply to such a treaty.
Marleni Cuellar
“Can we get your insight on the 1859 treaty? This we are told is one of the strengths of our case because by our definition it is a boundary treaty. However there is non-compliance to building a cart road with access to sea, which may be a reason for Guatemala to discount the treaty as invalid.”
Eric de Brabandere
Dr. Eric de Brabandere, Director, Grotius Centre for Int’l Dispute Resolution, Leiden University
“The question is whether one is conditional upon the other. Whether you say, we determine the boundary as such only if and to the extent that we build the road. And I don’t know how…That’s not the case. There is one principle that is often applied of course and international law which is in Latin the exceptio nonadimpleti contractus which is the rule that contract law as well which is if one party fails to meet its obligation the other one choose to comply with its obligations. That is an important principle of contract law that is valid for treaties as well. So, I wouldn’t say, based on what I have read, that the treat is void. The treaty is still there, but the question will be whether the nonperformance by the then sovereign, which is Britain, would justify that the other state does not have meet it obligation. The rules are basically that you have to assess whether the nonperformance by one state is sufficient enough to be able to justify the other state not performing its part of the deal. And the gravity here depends on what is the type of obligation and it also depends on—if I remember well from what I read—is that the idea that the boundary no longer needs to be respected by Guatemala because the road was not constructed is a claim that was made many years after the treaty. So this also an element to be taken into account; to what extent was it then really a condition. I don’t know, but this is a balancing exercise that the court will make. It’s international law so you have to write the rules that are relatively clear how they apply in a concrete situation is always an exercise of. But in this case the question will be is it grave enough, is it conditional and what is the effect of the fact that the claim was made roughly until 1930/1940 or something. What does that say? We have of course certain rules that relate to acquiescence which say you have a certain position that you take you cannot constantly contradict your position in the subsequent case if you have taken a firm position before. This case is a bit tricky because the claim has nonetheless been made since 1940; we are now in 2018. So it’s not like a claim that was made six months ago. So there was nothing done between 1859 and 1940, but there still since 1940 until 2018, there was a claim. So yeah, again there is a long period between the treaty and the claim, but also a long period since the claim was made.”
What about those who insist that the claim by Guatemala should be settled by the British since they were the ones who signed the treaty. That question was also put to the legal experts as well.
Dr. Eric de Brabandere
“The dispute and the boundaries is between you as a sovereign state and then Guatemala is a sovereign state. So the only question that will come into play is whether the treaty signed by the former colonizing powers was valid.”
Giulia Pinzauti
Dr. Giulia Pinzauti, Former I.C.J. Law Clerk, Asst Professor, Leiden University
“In the case decolonization and secession the principle that applies its another Latin phrase is uti possidetis that is the lawful possession of a the colony passes onto the new state. And that’s the rule that s recognized to apply. So in this case, it’s now the territory of Belize.”
Dr. Eric de Brabandere
“So you inherit the boundaries, internal administrative or external boundaries, as a former colony.”
…which means we also inherit the responsibility of finding that solution—whatever that may become April tenth, 2019. Reporting from The Hague for News Five, I am Marleni Cuellar.
