The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Breaking Belize News.
(Isaac Robateau is a Masters of Laws candidate at the University of South Wales, United Kingdom and holds an Honours Degree in Law from the Anglia Law School.)
– For information purposes only. –
Belize is currently party before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in two proceedings concerning its territorial integrity.
Firstly, the principal dispute is Belize V the Republic of Guatemala case concerning Belize’s territorial, insular, maritime claims. And secondly in a separate, related proceeding, Belize has initiated a case against the Republic of Honduras regarding sovereignty over its Sapodilla Cayes.
I have written this to weigh in my academic views on the procedural issue at the ICJ over Guatemala’s intervention application in the latter Sapodilla matter. The ICJ held its public hearings on this intervention from November 24 – 26 passed and I followed these proceedings keenly on the ICJ website.
It is my considered view that Guatemala’s current application is an abuse of process, and resultingly should fail. Otherwise, be admitted but with thoroughly restrictive directions, due in part to the Belizean consent. This position is grounded in the following reasoning. Guatemala cannot simultaneously be both a bona fide “party” and a “non-party” intervener in two separate matters, relating inter alia to the same alleged cause of action. Noteworthy, Belize through its legal representatives have not objected to this state of affairs, but rather the Honduran advocates have made salient legal arguments to dispute Guatemala’s assertion to be an “intervener” re: Sapodilla. This is not a frivolous objection and it goes to the heart of Article 62/63 of the ICJ Statute on the function of intervention.
The preliminary issue that arises is that under the purported guise of providing the court with relevant information on the Sapodillas case as a non-party intervener. Guatemala is attempting to assert its own alleged rights of the more substantive Belize case to which it is a party in different proceedings. My fundamental point is as a non-party observer those submissions are illegitimate in international law. The application present goes further than the legal scope of a non-party observer or intervener and would mislead the Court and be an abuse of its process. Basically, an attempt to argue one case in another. ICJ Case Law has made this principle clear:
see: Continental Shelf (Libya V Malta); Nicaragua V Colombia; Costa Rica V Nicaragua.
An intervener can only narrowly assist the Court.
Can this provide an unequal advantage of Guatemala advancing legal arguments (more time than Belize)?
Guatemala’s current application reveals prima facie serious concerns regarding such.
Guatemala’s legal pleadings in the Sapodillas case are more extensive than the respective memorials of the actual litigants both Belize and Honduras combined. This is not cosmetic and goes directly to their equality of arms.
This highlights that Guatemala is not indeed a bona fide non-party observer, but effectively duplicating proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the function of intervention and trying to give itself an unfair advantage to enhance its opportunity for submissions.
They fall short of and do not satisfy the applicable standard for the present application under international law.
I understand why Belize’s lawyers /presenters decided not to object and instead consented to the application. Their strategy appears to encourage the Court to address and potentially dispose of the Sapodilla issue involving Guatemala from the outset. However, I disagree with this approach, as it could give Guatemala an opportunity to make and enlarge those competing claims alongside Honduras within the same proceedings. This is without properly extinguishing and defeating Guatemala’s alleged claims in the underlying dispute.
Belize’s lack of objection or rather Belize’s consent does not cure a defective Guatemalan intervention application. Honduras’ objections seem legitimate and matter with or without the Belize’s legal team’s acquiescence. If Guatemala’s application is admitted, even with restrictions placed around it; they may gain procedural oxygen. That is a procedural gamble.
– Isaac Robateau (Mr.)
The post World Court Scrutiny as Belize, Honduras and Guatemala Collide over Legal Process appeared first on Belize News and Opinion on www.breakingbelizenews.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily those of Breaking Belize News. (Isaac Robateau is a Masters of Laws candidate at the University of South Wales, United Kingdom and holds an Honours Degree in Law from the Anglia Law School.) – For information purposes only. – Belize is
The post World Court Scrutiny as Belize, Honduras and Guatemala Collide over Legal Process appeared first on Belize News and Opinion on www.breakingbelizenews.com.