So, if you've attended the different public forums held by the Government, such as the town hall meetings, you'll have definitely heard quite a bit about why Belizeans should vote yes to go to the ICJ.
One of the most popular alternative suggestions is that Belize should bypass the court, and go straight to the United Nations Security Council for their intervention, to keep Guatemala from acting on its baseless claim to Belizean territory.
Informed persons tell us that this is kind of equivalent to taking a dispute that should be resolved by the Supreme Court, and asking the police to settle it instead. Well today, Major Lloyd Jones presented another alternative to the teachers, which he believes greatly minimizes the litigation risk.
From Jones' perspective Belize should instead seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the 1859 Treaty, which is at the heart of this territorial dispute. We explored it today with both Jones and Ambassador Alexis Rosado at the teachers forum, and here's how that conversation went:
Major Lloyd Jones
"We are going by way of the contentious route, and I think the risks associated with that does not warrant a 'yes'. So, my view is we should vote no, recalibrate, and ask our leaders to go back and seek an advisory opinion."
"The first thing with it is that it does not expose the territory of Belize. The current contentious path exposes the territory of Belize. At the last presentation that I saw with the Foreign Minister at UWI, he accepted that there are some litigation risks, and I think he went on with that famous statement about us being refugees, if in fact we were to lose. So, there is that possibility that we can lose. With the advisory opinion, it does not expose the territory of Belize. Now, how do we get an advisory opinion? Advisory opinions are reserved for the organs of the United Nations, and for their specialized agencies. In this case, we would go by the General Assembly, to ask the General Assembly to pass a resolution, asking the ICJ for an advisory opinion. And the question can be extremely simple. Ask the ICJ whether or not the ICJ whether or not the 1859 treaty is valid. If it is not valid, ask the ICJ who is responsible to fix it. Those two questions alone would solve this problem."
H.E. Alexis Rosado
"One is binding, the other one is not binding. One is, by nature, just an opinion. It has some moral strength, and legal strength because of the weight of the International Court of Justice, but nobody is bound by an opinion. Whereas, a decision by the court on the basis of both countries submitting to the compulsory jurisdiction. That's different. It is binding, by definition, and both countries would have to abide [by it]. So, one would bring finality, and the other one would not bring finality."
Daniel Ortiz, reporter
"Your solution assumes that Guatemala would accept these attempts. What if they completely reject that position, even if the advisory position comes down on Belize's side? We still go back to having a dispute?"
Major Lloyd Jones
"Well, then, it would have exposed the Guatemalans for who they are. That is precisely what we want to do. When you deal with bullies you have to expose them."
Another popular stance from the "No" vote supporters is to simply leave the claim alone, since it has persisted for centuries, and has become part of the state of co-existence for Belize and Guatemala. The counter from the supporters of the "Yes Vote" is that the low key Guatemalan aggression, such as in the areas of the Sarstoon River, will continue to escalate if it is not taken to the court.
Email
Print