It considers that the nullity of the arbitrary arbitral award of Paris is implicitly and explicitly recognized in the text of the document signed by Guyana while it was still a colony, and that without this recognition, the agreement would simply not have made sense, that Guyana should have signed it. [14] During the same year 1983, the border dispute will take place under the aegis of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, at the initiative of Venezuela, in accordance with the conflicts provided for in paragraph 2 of Article IV of the Agreement and annexed to Article 33º of the United Nations Letter on The Means of Peaceful settlement of disputes. [9] Venezuela views the agreement as a valuable – but erroneous – part of the negotiation process. [Citation required] Venezuela claims that the United Kingdom granted independence to its colony without solving the border problem and protests against the fact that the character of a “state” was granted to a colony that did not own it. . . .
Share →
