ICJ files initial dates for Bolivia-Chile dispute

The ICJ this week fixed time-limits for the filing of initial pleadings in the case concerning 'Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean' between Bolivia and Chile. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, who initiated proceedings, must file a Memorial by 17 April 2014, and the Republic of Bolivia must follow this pleading by filing its Counter-Memorial by 18 February 2015. The filing of Memorials and Counter-Memorials is standard practise in the Hague, to outline the initial positions of both parties, however, no decision has been made by the court regarding what subsequent procedures may follow.

On 24 April Bolivia instituted proceedings in the ICJ against Chile to reclaim sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean: territory that it lost in the 19^thcentury War of the Pacific. Chilean President Sebastian Pinera has responded by rejecting talks, asking the ICJ to dismiss Bolivia's application, as he believes it threatens to open a “Pandora's Box” of international border disputes.

The 400km strip of coastal territory was annexed by Chile in the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, following the five-year conflict over mining rights. Hostilities between the neighbours have lingered since then, with repeated attempts to renegotiate the border failing. Bolivia, which still maintains a small navy and celebrates the Day of the Sea each year to honour its once substantial maritime territory, maintains that the 1904 Treaty is void, as it was signed under coercion from Chile. Authorities in Santiago however remain steadfast in opposing Bolivia's claim, with diplomatic ties not being re-established since they were broken off in 1978.

Bolivia seeks entry into Chile-Peru ICJ case

The maritime border dispute between Chile and Peru got a lot more complicated last week, when Bolivia announced its intention to get involved in the case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on Monday 11th July.


A press statement from Bolivia's Ministry of Foreign relations said “Bolivia's main goal regarding the maritime dispute is to inform the ICJ regarding its views on a subject of vital interest for the Bolivian person, which is its right to sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.”

Bolivia has been landlocked since 1884, when it was defeated by Chile in the War of the Pacific (1879-1883). Previously, Bolivia had sea access through what is now northern Chile.

Gaining Bolivia sea access has been one of the driving issues of President Evo Morales' time in office. He announced in March that he intended to sue Chile at the ICJ for sovereign sea access. He has already created a maritime claim organisation to prepare legal actions for a future Bolivia-Chile ICJ case.

While Chile will undoubtedly be unhappy about Bolivia's interest in its case with Peru, how Peru will react is not yet clear. In 2010 Peru granted Bolivia access to the Pacific through a 99-year lease on a small strip of land in the south of the country.

For many Bolivians, however, this is not enough, and while some critics say Morales should focus on domestic issues, the loss of Bolivia's sea access in 1884 remains an issue of national outrage.

Peru took Chile to the ICJ over their maritime border is 2007. Peru, which also lost territory to Chile in the War of the Pacific, argues that the maritime border should follow the downward curve of the land border, which would give it control of an additional 37,900 square kilometres of ocean territory.

Chile, however, argues that the border should follow longitudinal lines.

A decision is not expected until 2013, however, if Bolivia's request to intervene is granted, a decision could take significantly longer to reach.

Sources: Santiago Times, UPI

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Chile backtracks on Bolivian sea access deal

Chilean President Pinera celebrates the miners' rescue in October

Bolivian hopes of securing access to the sea through agreement with Chile took a major hit last week as Chilean Foreign Minister Alfredo Moreno confirmed that the new government of President Sebastian Pinera would not be supporting the agreement that had tentatively been reached between his predecessor Michelle Bachelet and Bolivia's Evo Morales providing land-locked Bolivia with sea-access in northern Chile.

Putting Chilean security concerns over bilateral relations, Moreno, speaking on a Chilean talk show on Sunday 5th December, said that while they were willing to cooperate and collaborate with Bolivia, they would never be willing to cede sovereignty. Moreno said, “we will never accept something that divides the country in two…Sovereignty is not on the table.”

This has proved to be an unpopular move in Chile, as Pinera's approval rating continues to slide after peaking after the miners' successful rescue in October, and many blogosphere commentators have argued that good neighbourly relations are more important than control of a small area of territory.

Bolivia had a Pacific shoreline until it lost it to Chile in the 1874-84 War of the Pacific, in which Bolivia allied with Peru to fight Chile, but lost. Indeed Bolivia has lost vast swaths of its territory to its neighbours since its independence from Spain in 1925. Bolivian bitterness towards the Chileans has persisted since, although Bachelet and Morales took important steps to mending relations.

In 2006, a 13 point agenda was established that included La Paz's demand for access to the Pacific. It appears that just before he took office, Pinera stopped Bachelet from signing an agreement with Morales in which Chile would cede a 'non sovereign coastal enclave' to Bolivia in the northern region of Tarapaca.

In October 2009, Morales and his Peruvian counterpart Alan Garcia, signed a deal giving Bolvia a 99-year lease to four square kilometres of desolate shoreline near Peru's southern port of Ilo.

When finalising the deal in a ceremony with Garcia, Morales said, "This opens the door for Bolivians to have an international port, to the use of the ocean for global trade and for Bolivian products to have better access to global markets.”

Pinera, however, has in this case blocked Bolivian access, arguing that handing the enclave to Bolivia would bring great "migratory, free transit, administrative and infrastructure problems" for Chilean authorities. Foreign Minister Moreno said that Chile will “analyse all the proposals for a (Bolivian) better access to the sea, but will always guard the interests of Chile, and that interest will never be to have the country divided in two.”

It seems therefore likely that Bolivia may still gain access to a sea outlet, but only under clear Chilean sovereignty. Pinera has been taking a tough line on security, increasing border security and signing new contracts with defense suppliers. Senior officials have recently said that the immediate security threats to Chile include large-scale immigration from its poor neighbours, as well as organised crime and narcotics trafficking.

The toughening of Pinera's stance towards Bolivia must be seen in this light: he is clearly worried that giving Bolivia control - even in a non-sovereign capacity - will compromise Chile's ability to control its territory. It seems he is also worried that offering access once could revive Bolivian ambitions towards other territories lost in conflict.

Bolivia, however, is likely to continue to press for sea access. According to the Bolivian minister for planning and development, Viviana Caro, direct access to the ocean wouldl cut the distance goods have to travel to Asian markets by 40per cent. Bolivia is keen to become competative in the Asian markets, to take advantage of its plentiful resources of zinc, tin and silver.

Sources: UPI, MercoPress, Democratic Underground