Both parties, however, have been encouraged “to continue dialogue in search of a solution”. The litigation came to the ICJ in 2013, when Bolivia sued Chile to recover an outlet to the ocean. He did not ask for the return of a part of the territory lost in the War of the Pacific (1879-1884), but to unblock the geographic “cap” created then, endorsed with the signing of the peace treaty of 1904. The case had created great expectation in both countries and flooded social networks in Bolivia. This is due, in part, to the optimism shown at all times by the president, Evo Morales. The president had thanked “the people (…) because he always remained united,” he said, shortly before reading the ruling. Chile preferred caution. “We have heard too much about President Morales. Let’s listen to the judges, “was the official response before the court’s announcement.
The Hague fails in favor of Chile and rejects that it must negotiate the exit to the sea with Bolivia Peru and Chile wait for the failure of The Hague that will define its territorial waters.
The Hague fails in favor of Chile and rejects that it must negotiate the exit to the sea with Bolivia Peru obtains almost 50,000 square kilometers of sea.
Bolivia and Paraguay are the only countries in Latin America that do not have access to the sea. La Paz lost it in the War of the Pacific, which confronted her, along with Peru, in Chile. Since then, according to historians, Bolivia was deprived of 400 kilometers of coastline and some 120,000 square kilometers of territory. Although the country has free movement of people and goods to reach the ocean, since the signing of the treaty of 1904 has tried to review the agreement repeatedly. The Bolivian authorities demand sovereign access to the sea, not a mere right of way.
The novelty of this case is that they did not ask the court in The Hague for the return of territories, nor the reform of the existing treaty. They hoped it would sanction Chile’s obligation to negotiate the dispute “in good faith, for violation of the promises in that sense made by Chile, which seems to suffer collective amnesia,” in the words of the French jurist Monique Chemillier, Bolivian representative before the ICJ.
Morales has considered “State policy” to sue Chile because its Constitution qualifies the sea as “world heritage.” Without forgetting the enormous fishing wealth at that height of the Pacific. In response, Chile had assured the court that “Bolivia has ignored the context of the Pacific War and the ICJ is not a tribunal of history, but of law.”
The case was launched in 2015, when international judges declared themselves competent. During the hearings, in 2018, Claudio Grossman, the Chilean representative, said that his country “has talked and will continue to talk with Bolivia, but the Chilean territory and its sovereignty are not subject to conversation.” Roberto Ampuero, Chilean Foreign Minister, added that Bolivia “seeks victimization and presents distorted arguments.” La Paz, as indicated, “exercises, like no other country, access to Chilean ports of the Pacific.
