Lawyers representing Guyana and Suriname before the arbitral tribunal are currently consulting on the names of three arbitrators.
The maritime border dispute between Guyana and Suriname is to be settled by an arbitral tribunal appointed under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Two members of the five-member tribunal have already been named: Professor Frank Smith, for Guyana and Professor Hans Smit, for Suriname.
In February, Guyana invoked the provisions of Article 287 of the Convention to obtain a legal binding settlement of its maritime border dispute with Suriname, having tried in vain to reach agreement on joint exploration and exploitation arrangements pending the settlement of the dispute.
Informed sources close to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs say that once agreement is reached on the three other arbitrators, they will meet Guyana's and Suriname's arbitrators, to elect a chairman among themselves.
The international law firm of Clavard, Swain and Moore is representing Suriname. Former Commonwealth secretary general and one-time Guyana attorney-general, Sir Shridath Ramphal leads Guyana's legal team, which includes United States-based attorneys Paul Reichler and Pavan Akhavan.
The sources tell Stabroek News that the hearings of Guyana's application for provisional measures should commence next month. Among the provisional measures which Guyana has applied for, are a prohibition against the harassment of Guyanese fishermen operating in the Corentyne River as well as a ban on any action by the Surinamese government to hinder the restart of exploration activity or any similar activities in the area of Guyana's exclusive economic zone that Suriname has been claiming as its own.
Informed sources have told Stabroek News that the tribunal will hear Guyana's application for these provisional measures ahead of Suriname's challenge to its competence to hear the claim.
Suriname has stated that it intends to challenge the competence of the tribunal to hear Guyana's claim because it did not exhaust all the options to settle the dispute as mandated by Chapter XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; that it did not make every effort to arrive at the practical arrangements as mandated by Articles 74 and 83 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
It is also challenging the competence of the tribunal because not all aspects of the dispute between Guyana and Suriname fall under the tribunal.