Email

Print

Jules Vasquez reporting
The clause that many take issue with is Article 2 - and Jules Vasquez looked at it today:...

"Any and all" legal claims of Guatemala against Belize - that's the language in the Special Agreement and it has triggered widespread hysteria - because it seems to lend legitimacy to Guatemala's bogus territorial claim. It seems to say that those claims are "legal".

But Assad Shoman - who took advice and agreed on that language said that clause was carefully worded because it is to Belize's advantage - a way of making sure the Guatemalans bring to the court whatever legitimate claims they may believe they have. He said this was the advice of their eminent lawyers:

Assad Shoman - Historian
"So they said the only way you could protect yourself is that if you put wording in there to ensure that every claim that they might conceivably have now or whenever has to be dealt with in one sitting of the ICJ now, in this case and they advised that we put those words "any and all claims.""

Adele Ramos,
"Everybody votes yes to go to the ICJ. Guatemala files its claim or claims. It can file multiple claims, because it can file in the alternative - if I don't get this, then I want that. If I don't get that, then I want this. And then it does not limit itself to "legal claims", but it still try to squeeze in their things having to do with equity and all that."

Assad Shoman - Historian
"The judges will say you are out of order. You have signed a document saying you will present legal claims; you can't come to me with this equity nonsense. We don't have to say anything. It's there in the special agreement. That's why we put it in there."

The wider context for the public apprehension over the wording of the special agreement is that some feel it is a boundary treaty which makes certain concessions about Belize's boundaries. The experts in the Hague have told us that a special agreement only describes how and under what terms a dispute will reach the ICJ.