International Court of Justice: Resolution of the conflict between Bolivia and Chile
The main judicial body of the United Nations Organization is the International Court of Justice, is based in the Palacio de la Paz in The Hague (Netherlands) and is responsible for making decisions and resolving legal controversies between States between States.
The General Assembly together with the Security Council elected its fifteen magistrates, who comply with a nine -year mandate. This Court is the only one of the six main bodies of the United Nations (General Assembly, Fiduciary Administration Board, Economic and Social Council, Security Council, and International Court of Justice), which is not in the United States, New York is The only one that is not located in New York (United States). Its statute is an integral part of the United Nations Charter.
Bolivia and Chile
In the nineteenth century, Chile based its economy on the export of the northern saltpeters extended by the Atacama desert and the south of the Peruvian territory. When the Bolivia government imposed a tax of 10 cents for Quintal de Salitre exported to a private transaction contract, Chile made the decision to invade its territory with the argument that Bolivia was violating a commercial treaty signed in 1874; In this agreement it was established that Bolivia was not going to increase taxes to the saltpeter 25 years, until 1899.
Unleashing a conflict in which Peru was involved, who was an ally of Bolivia, this conflict is known as the Pacific War or also Guano War and Salitre and occurred in 1879 and 1884
In this confrontation, the triumph was for Chile who moved its border to the north and product of it Bolivia was without 120.000 square kilometers of territory and 400 kilometers of coast, according to historians estimates.
In an analysis CITATION AMA15 L 1034 (Muñoz, 2015) comments that in 1895, Chile and Bolivia signed another treaty, the Treaty to Transfer of Territories that never entered into force. In this treaty several provisions were reflected for Bolivia to recover its access to the sea, but as long as Chile has sovereignty over other territories.
After this, both nations on October 20, 1904, the parties signed the peace and friendship treaty with which it was intended to officially end the Pacific War. By virtue of that treaty, which entered into force on March 10, 1905, the entire Bolivian coastal territory became Chilean and Bolivia obtained a right of commercial transit through the ports of Chile.
According to Citation Jav18 L 1034 (Azcoiti, 2018), the 1904 ‘Treaty of Chile’s Perpetual Domain’ or Peace and Friendship Treaty of October 20, 1904 is a treaty that had the objective of finishing the state of war between Chile and Bolivia, But conflicts did not cease this strategy to only a country.
The text signed in this treaty mentions: ‘For this treaty, the territories occupied by this by article 2 of the Truce Pact of April 4, 1884’ are recognized from the absolute and perpetual domain of Chile ’.
Regarding the loss of access to the Pacific Ocean, Chile grants Bolivia several privileges themselves that were positivized in the treaty, benefits such as access to ports in the Pacific, the establishment of their own customs agencies in the ports that are designated for its trade and the ‘perpetuity’ recognition of the broadest and most free commercial transit right through its territory, among others.
In the last 70 years, Bolivia and Chile have tried to solve this enormously conflict, they have been involved in several negotiation processes, but they have not managed to settle anything.
In 1950 there was allegedly a conversation that stated that Chile would grant access to the sea to Bolivia and La Paz would grant rights to Santiago on the waters of Lake Tititaca. In fact, Bolivia has presented these letters in the judicial process of 2015 as proof or sample of the commitment assumed by Chile to solve the problem, with respect to this Chile has answered that this never happened and much less assumed a formal commitment.
Years later, in 1975, Chile and Bolivia were led by military regimes, and the good relations between Hugo Banzer (Bolivia) and Augusto Pinochet (Chile) allowed the opening of a new period of negotiations in which Chile, allegedly, agreed to Bolivia’s claims in exchange for the territorial transfer of the same size on a river that originates in Bolivian territory. But these negotiations closed without any success, in 1977.
In 2006 a new negotiation process began with the so -called ‘Agenda of the 13 points without exclusions’. Local newspapers have reported secret meetings in the capitals of both countries and Evo Morales acknowledged that he sent a representative of Bolivia to fly over the coast by helicopter with Chilean emissaries. However, in 2010 Sebastián Piñera decided to end these negotiations. To which Evo Morales responded ‘patience ended’, in a speech months later, announcing that he would initiate the process before the UN Court.
According to advisory opinions and provisions of the International Court of Justice, Bolivia in your claim asks the Court to fail and declare that:
- Chile is obliged to negotiate with Bolivia in order to reach an agreement that gives Bolivia fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean
- Chile must fulfill such an obligation in good faith, promptly and formally, within a reasonably and effectively."
Regarding the lawsuit proposed by Bolivia, Chile first claimed that the Court had no competence to resolve this matter, arguing that the Court lacks competition under article XXXI of the Bogotá Pact to rule on the controversy raised by Bolivia. He also quotes article VI of the Pact, and states that the issues in litigation in this matter, namely territorial sovereignty and the character of Bolivia’s access to the Pacific Ocean, were resolved by agreement in the Peace Treaty of 1904 and follow being regulated by that treaty, which was in force on the date of the conclusion of the pact, so there is nothing to resolve, since there is a treaty and must be respected.
Despite this, the Court declared competent in September 2015 and requested the continuation of this process. The legal teams of both countries presented in March 2017 their final allegations of litigation. ‘There is no ever, a legal obligation that forces Chile to negotiate a sovereign exit to the sea with Bolivia,’ Chile said. After the respective allegations, the International Court finally issued a sentence.
According to Citation Jav18 L 1034 (Azcoiti, 2018) the International Court of Justice of Hague issued an unappealable and mandatory sentence: it dismissed the claim of Bolivia and said that Chile was not obliged to negotiate. "The mere mention of the maritime issue cannot force a negotiation of sovereign access to the sea," said the Court when reading the sentence.
The Court observes that Chile and Bolivia have a long history of dialogues and negotiations aimed at identifying an appropriate solution to the Mediterranean of Bolivia; The ICJ clearly and categorically has established that Chile has the entire world of the world to defend its entire terrestrial, maritime territory and its sovereignty.
But in the same way it was said that this Fall does not prevent the parties Chile and Bolivia from continuing their dialogue to address Bolivia Mediterranean intentions and to be able to resolve their hostile relationship timely and effectively.
The sentence issued by the ICJ is a bit superficial, no issues were analyzed in depth, because according to them, it was not the central issue of litigation. But perhaps this lack of thoroughness caused this result.
First, beyond the conflict there is something important to remember and that is that the sea is a heritage of all, that is, every citizen has the right to enjoy it and therefore every nation has the same right. The fact that a state has sea, is very significant since through it, the people market several products in the international environment.
As can be seen, the conflict between Chile and Bolivia has existed over decades, but has tried to resolve internally through agreements, which has not given results; and as. If we put ourselves in the place of Chile, we would also give him the reason since as a sovereign state I must defend my territory, my interests and I would not be willing to let something go so easy to get a lot to get. And also if we are located in "Los Zapatps" in Bolivia because it is understandable, I only want an own space that allows me to market internationalmte and not only that but also increase tourism.
The point here is who is granted the reason?, Then we can realize the importance of treaties; because in the sentence the 1904 Treaty is mentioned in which Bolivia gave the maritime territory to Chile with the purpose of ending conflicts, which has signed that treaty does not favor Bolivia at all and I consider that if It is so important for them an exit to the sea because they must oppose the path of negotiation with Chile, in order to achieve an agreement in which they feel favored; Chile also to be accessible and give up a bit because they are mistakes, confrontations and wars of the past that should no longer affect today. As mentioned in the sentence, this ruling is not an impediment for the dialogues to continue on the table, with the clear, strategic and favoring points for each of the parties.
Bibliography
- Bibliographybbc. (October 1, 2018). BBC World. Retrieved October 2019, from BBC Mundo: https: // www.BBC.com/Mundo/News-America-Latina-43459908
- Azcoiti, j. B. (October 1, 2018). the newspaper.it is. Retrieved on October 2019, from Eldiario.es: https: // www.the newspaper.ES/INTERNATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL-JUSTICIA-CHILE-BOLIVIA_0_820318497.HTML
- Muñoz, a. (2015). Esmiperu. Retrieved October 2019, from Esmiperu: https: // www.Esmiperu.com/2015/10/sentence-bolivia-vs-chile-de-2015-en.HTML
Leave feedback