International Court of Justice. Obligation to negotiate acces to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile). Memorial of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia
| Páginas | 81-229 |
81
EL JUICIO ENTRE BOLIVIA Y CHILE EN LA CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA
Editorial El Jurista
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATION TO NEGOTIATE ACCESS TO
THE PACIFIC OCEAN
(BOLIVIA v. CHILE)
MEMORIAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA
VOLUME I
17 APRIL 2014
INTRODUCTION
1. The Plurinational State of Bolivia (“Bolivia”) initiated theseivia”) initiated these
proceedings against the Republic of Chile (“Chile”) by its Application
dated 24 April 2013. By its Order dated 18 June 2013, the Court xed
17 April 2014 as the date for the ling Bolivia’s written pleadings. The
present Memorial is submitted in accordance with that Order.
2. This Introduction is divided into four sections. Section I pro-
vides an overview of the dispute before the Court and summarizes
Bolivia’s position. Section II explains the basis of the Court’s juris-
diction. Section III sets out the relief sought. Section IV provides an
outline of the structure of this Memorial.
HUGO LLANOS MANSILLA / CRISTIÁN CABRERA ORELLANA
82
Editorial El Jurista
Section I: Overview of the dispute
3. The present dispute concerns the non-compliance by Chile
with its obligation to negotiate in good faith a sovereign access for
Bolivia to the Pacic Ocean, and its repudiation of that obligation.
Bolivia was deprived of its coastal territories when they were occu-
pied by Chile in the War of the Pacic in 1879. In agreements with
Bolivia, as well as in its own unilateral declarations, Chile expressly
recognized that Bolivia should not become perpetually landlocked,
and bound itself to negotiate a sovereign access that would allow
Bolivia to maintain its connection to the sea. But after more than a
century Chile has not fullled that obligation. Indeed, after decades
of prevarication, during which there was a steady degradation of the
terms on which Chile had agreed to negotiate, Chile shifted its posi-
tion and has now completely repudiated its obligation. Bolivia asks
the Court to order the Parties to resume negotiations in good faith
on such access, as they have agreed to do on many occasions since
the nineteenth century. The two States themselves will negotiate the
exact terms of that sovereign access.
4. Bolivia’s case is focused upon the continuing failure of Chile to
full its obligation to negotiate a sovereign access and upon its recent
repudiation of that obligation. Chapter I of this Memorial sets out a
detailed account of the historical evolution of the dispute from the oc-
cupation of Bolivia’s coastal territory up to the present. The following
is an overview of the key episodes.
A. THE KEY EPISODES
5. In 6 August 1825 the independent State of Bolivia emerged
from the administrative province of Audiencia de Charcas established
in 1559 under the Spanish dominion. Bolivia inherited the coastal
territory of this province in accordance with the uti possidetis princi-
ple; and no objection was raised to its territorial boundaries by Chile
or by any other State89.
6. In the 1840s, Chile began making claims to Bolivia’s coastal
area – the Department of Littoral (“Departamento Litoral”), aware of
its rich natural resources90. After long negotiations, a decision was
reached nally between Bolivia and Chile by a treaty dated 10 August
89 Chap. I paras. 37-41.
90 Chap. I paras. 47-48.
83
EL JUICIO ENTRE BOLIVIA Y CHILE EN LA CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA
Editorial El Jurista
1866. By this treaty, Chile recognized that “the line of demarcation
of boundaries between Chile and Bolivia in the desert… shall hence-
forth be the parallel of latitude 24 degrees south¨. And a subsequent
treaty, signed at Sucre in 6 August 1874, conrmed the 24 parallel
as the boundary between the two States. Another treaty, “respecting
boundaries”, was signed at Sucre in 6 August 187491.
7. In 1877 an earthquake devastated the area and Bolivia or-
dained a tax to fund the relief effort. Chilean investors disputed that
tax; and in 1879, despite Bolivia’s proposal to submit the controversy
to arbitration, and the cancellation of the tax, Chile used the dispute
to justify its invasion of Bolivia’s coastal territory92.
8. In the face of Chile’s threats of a further invasion, Bolivia
signed at Valparaiso on 4 April, 1884 a Truce Pact93 providing that
Chile would continue to govern the occupied coastal area of Bolivia94.
The parties agreed, however, that the Truce Pact be complemented by
another peace agreement providing for Bolivia’s sovereign access to
the sea.
9. Accordingly, on 18 May 1895, Bolivia and Chile concluded a
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which conrmed the loss for Bolivia
of its extensive and resource-rich Department of Littoral for the ben-
et of Chile, together with a Treaty on Transfer of Territory (the “1895
Transfer Treaty”), providing for the grant to Bolivia of an outlet to the
Pacic Ocean95. These instruments, and the accompanying explana-
tory and additional protocols, provided that Chile’s right to govern
the occupied coastal territories would be subject to Bolivia’s “free and
natural access to the sea”.96 In particular, Chile expressly committed
itself “to acquire the port and territories of Tacna and Arica”, then in
dispute with Peru, “with the unavoidable purpose of ceding them to
Bolivia.”97 Chile further undertook that if it did not succeed in ob-
taining this territory, it would give Bolivia an alternative sovereign
access to the Pacic through “Vítor or another equivalent inlet” and
91 See MB Vol. II, Annex 96.
92 Chap. I paras. 53-57.
93 Chap. I paras. 60-64.
94 See BM Vol. II, Annex 108, Article II.
95 See BM Vol. II, Annexes 99 and 98, Chap. I paras. 71-88.
96 See BM Vol. II, Annex 98. Preamble.
97 See BM Vol. II, Annex 105. Art. III.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba