On Monday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will rule on Bolivia’s maritime claim against Chile for sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Bolivia filed this claim in Abril 2013 when it requested the ICJ to declare Chile has the legal obligation to negotiate with Bolivia “to reach an agreement that guarantees a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.”
ANALYSIS:
Bolivia's Maritime Claim: Battle to Undo 139-Year-Old Conquest
There are three options. The 15 judges of the ICJ can reject Bolivia’s claim ruling that Chile doesn’t have an obligation to negotiate with Bolivia, it can rule in favor of Bolivia forcing Chile to negotiate, or it can simply recommend dialogue between the neighboring countries.
Bolivia has argued Chile has made the commitment to negotiate sovereign access to the sea throughout the last century, establishing something called 'rights of expectations.'
Chile argues that the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Bolivia, through which Bolivia accepted the loss of 400 kilometers of coast and 120,000 square kilometers of territory after losing the War of the Pacific (1879-1883), is valid. But Bolivia claims it signed the treaty under duress and that later proposals by Chile, included a land-swap to return Bolivia's access to the sea.
In 2015 Chile questioned the ICJ's jurisdiction to hear Bolivia’s case. That same year Bolivia won its first legal battle when the court overwhelmingly voted to reject Chile's objection.
The dismissal of Chile's objection was Bolivia's first diplomatic and legal victory. The ruling recognized that Bolivia gained its independence with a coast on the Pacific Ocean and that the 1904 treaty does not address the matter of Chile's obligation to negotiate sovereign access to the sea.
If the ICJ rules in favor of Bolivia, it is uncertain whether the obligation to negotiate will carry with it an obligation to negotiate favorably.
In Chile, some people have argued if the court rules in favor of Bolivia the country should abandon the Pact of Bogota, which recognized the ICJ’s jurisdiction. Others, like Chile’s former Naval commander, Edmundo Gonzalez, have entertained a “military option” to settle this case without providing details.
Whatever the ICJ’s ruling is on this matter, it will not mark the end of legal contentions between the countries. The court is still reviewing a case filed by Chile requesting the court to declare Bolivia’s Silala as an international river. A claim Bolivia rejects arguing the Silala is a spring that was diverted by Chilean companies.