Email

Print

Sounds good for the Mauritians, but, remember, this is just an advisory opinion - not a full judgement - so the British are not compelled to do anything. But, it is a case in which Belize has an active interest. In fact, Belize made a presentation during the hearings before the court. Today, the Belizean Ambassador to Guatemala told us what are the crucial parallels with the Belize - Guatemala case.

H.E. Alexis Rosado, Belize Ambassador to Guatemala
"The court found that the principle of self-determination goes hand in hand with territorial integrity. Something which we have been arguing and making the point for years, way back in the 70s we have been making that point to the international community and especially to Guatemala and now in this case the court gave clarity to that and it said very clearly that that is a customary norm of international law. So we are pleased with that decision especially since we participated fully in the proceedings of the court for this request for an advisory opinion. So we were full part of it. In fact, I am pleased to say that our arguments were largely the arguments of the court adopted for its conclusions. So we feel that it strengthens our legal position at bit more. I don't know that the courts; conclusions resolve the problems that marisus has."

Reporter
"One of the reasons that it may not be definitive solution to their problems is because it was just an advisory opinion, it's not a legally binding decision"

H.E. Alexis Rosado
"That's right, advisory opinions of the court are by nature just an advisory, they are not binding, they are not enforceable. The difference with our case is that in the 1970s when we were lobbying for independence with territorial integrity, the leaders at the time had to consider the possibility of going for an advisory opinion and in fact they rejected that position, because for the same reason that it would not settle the dispute with Guatemala. It does not bind anybody to accept it or to enforce it and that is a big difference."

Reporter
"Why didn't they take the course that we are taking? Why they didn't they just go and take it before the ICJ like we're planning to do depending on the referendum?"

H.E. Alexis Rosado
'That is the frustration that they have. They have been trying to get the UK government to go to the ICJ or to resolve it, but to go to the international court of justice for a binding decision both parties have to agree. In our case its different because Guatemala has now finally agreed to go to the ICJ for a binding decision which as we know its enforceable by the organs of the United Nations, in this case the security council and that is what we need and this case the principle of self-determination with territorial integrity is clarify. So there is no doubt anymore that a country when you talk about a people's right to self-determination, they have a right to the entirety of their territory and to any attempt to remove or detach any part of that territory is against international law.'

Former foreign Minister Assad Shoman also issued a statement today saying, quote,
"...as Belizeans prepare to vote in a referendum on whether to submit the still unresolved claim of Guatemala…they can take comfort in this most recent affirmation by the ICJ of the principle of self-determination and its inclusion of the right to territorial integrity. We continue to hope that today's multi-cultural Britain, immeasurably enriched by the peoples it previously brutally enslaved and colonized, will not maintain its former racist, imperialist and illegal posture, but rather recognize the errors of the past and move to implement, in collaboration with the government of Mauritius, the Opinion of the ICJ."