Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala | |
---|---|
Court | International Court of Justice |
Full case name | Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) |
Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) was a case at the International Court of Justice. In the case, Chile petitioned the Court to declare the Silala River an "international watercourse whose use by Chile and Bolivia is governed by customary international law." [1] Chile presented the case in 2016 while the Bolivian case against Chile, Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean , was still ongoing. [2] According to France 24 the case came as a surprise. [2] The upper area of Silala River around the Bolivia–Chile border have had its flow enhanced by channels since 1928 for sanitary reasons given that the river sources lie in small wetlands. [3] [4] These wetlands are bofedales with insect fauna and were intevened for better drainage after fly eggs were detected in the water supply of the city of Antofagasta. [3]
Bolivia's position is that the waters of the Silala flow into Chile through artificial channels, while Chile claims that it is an international river. [5] [ clarification needed ] Bolivia also sought a ruling that specified that any future enhanced flow into Chile had to be the subject of an agreement. [4]
As a backdrop to the dispute none of the parties had signed the 1997 Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses or the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes and there was no specific basin agreement. [4] Bolivia had as of 2022 made little use of the waters the Silala River given an unfavourable geographical position. [3]
Within the context of the Bolivian demand for sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean Bolivian President Evo Morales threatened various times during his 2006–2019 ternures to reduce the flow into Chile and charge Chile for the use of its water. [2] [6]
On December 1, 2022, the ICJ delivered its judgment in the case. It found that the 'parties agree with respect to the legal status of the Silala River', and therefore the Court was not called upon to give a decision. [7] [8] The court also established that any improvement in the flow of the river did no had repercutions in customary international law. [4]
Various sources, like El País, described the ruling as favourable to Chile as the court acknowledged the international character of Silala River which was the prime Chilean objective. [9] [10] The Chilean ministry of foreign affairs said it "appreciated" the court ruling and the president of Chile Gabriel Boric said that "Chile went for judicial certainty and obtained it". [11]
The ruling did not said much on the specifics of the management of the water resources but it recognized Bolivia's right to carry out certain types of unilateral measures in its territory such as dismantling the channels. [10] Bolivian newspapers found in general the ruling favourable to Bolivia taking note of the court's acknowledgment of certain Bolivian rights and its rejection of Chile's claim that Bolivia was not fullfilling its obligations under international law. [12]
According to lawyer Raquel Cárcar Izurriaga of the University of Navarra the ruling diminishes the potential for future conflicts over the river but does not remove them completely since rightfull Bolivian actions could upset Chile. [10] The magnitude of any international conflicts arising from the Silala River is expected by Cárcar Izurriaga to remain limited given the very small amounts of water resources involved. [10]
Bolivia traditionally has maintained normal diplomatic relations with all hemispheric states except Chile. Foreign relations are handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by the Chancellor of Bolivia, Rogelio Mayta.
The Atacama Desert border dispute was a dispute between Bolivia and Chile from 1825 to 1879 for the territories of the Atacama Coast due to the different views of both countries of the territory inherited from the Spanish Empire. During the dispute, both countries signed Treaties in 1866 and 1874. The dispute occurred prior to the War of the Pacific, which settled the dispute in favor of Chile. Due to the surrender of land by Bolivia, the Puna de Atacama dispute was generated between Chile and Argentina and was settled in 1899.
The River Mapocho is a river in Chile. It flows from its source in the Andes mountains onto the west and divides Chile's capital Santiago in two.
The Beagle conflict was a border dispute between Chile and Argentina over the possession of Picton, Lennox and Nueva islands and the scope of the maritime jurisdiction associated with those islands that brought the countries to the brink of war in 1978.
The pulp mill dispute was a dispute between Argentina and Uruguay concerning the construction of pulp mills on the Uruguay River. The presidents at the time were Néstor Kirchner (Argentina) and Tabaré Vázquez (Uruguay). As a diplomatic, economic, and public relations conflict between both parties, the dispute also affected tourism and transportation as well as the otherwise amicable relations between the two countries. The feud was unprecedented between the two countries, which have shared historical and cultural ties.
The Chilean Sea is the portion of the Pacific Ocean lying west of the Chilean mainland. The official Chilean usage for Chilean Sea was defined on 30 May 1974 when the Diario oficial de la Republica de Chile published Supreme Decree #346, which declared that "the waters surrounding or touching the shores of the national territory shall be known as Mar Chileno."
The Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute is an ongoing territorial dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over the Essequibo region, also known as Esequibo or Guayana Esequiba in Spanish, a 159,500 km2 (61,600 sq mi) area west of the Essequibo River. The territory, excluding the Venezuelan-controlled Ankoko Island, is controlled by Guyana as part of six of its regions, based on the 1899 Paris Arbitral Award. It is also claimed by Venezuela as the Guayana Esequiba State. The boundary dispute was inherited from the colonial powers and has persisted following the independence of Venezuela and Guyana.
Perú v. Chile was a public international law case concerning a territorial dispute between the South American republics of Peru and Chile over the sovereignty of an area at sea in the Pacific Ocean approximately 37,900 square kilometres (14,600 sq mi) in size. Peru contended that its maritime boundary delimitation with Chile was not fixed, but Chile claimed that it holds no outstanding border issues with Peru. On January 16, 2008, Peru brought forth the case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, the Netherlands, which accepted the case and formally filed it as the Case concerning maritime delimitation between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile - Perú v. Chile.
International relations between the Republic of Chile and the Argentine Republic have existed for decades. The border between the two countries is the world's third-longest international border, which is 5,300 km (3,300 mi) long and runs from north to south along the Andes mountains. Although both countries gained their independence during the South American wars of liberation, during much of the 19th and the 20th century, relations between the countries were tense as a result of disputes over the border in Patagonia. Despite this, Chile and Argentina have never been engaged in a war with each other. In recent years, relations have improved. Argentina and Chile have followed quite different economic policies. Chile has signed free trade agreements with countries such as China, the United States, Canada, South Korea, as well as European Union, and it's a member of the APEC. Argentina belongs to the Mercosur regional free trade area. In April 2018, both countries suspended their membership from the UNASUR.
Territorial disputes of Nicaragua include the territorial dispute with Colombia over the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina and Quita Sueño Bank. Nicaragua also has a maritime boundary dispute with Honduras in the Caribbean Sea and a boundary dispute over the Rio San Juan with Costa Rica.
The relationship between the Colombia and Nicaragua has evolved amid conflicts over the San Andrés y Providencia Islands located in the Caribbean Sea close to the Nicaraguan shoreline and the maritime boundaries covering 150,000 km2 that included the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina and the banks of Roncador, Serrana, Serranilla and Quitasueño as well as the 82nd meridian west which Colombia claims as a border but which the International Court has sided with Nicaragua in disavowing. The sea around the archipelago has been under Colombian control since 1931 when a treaty was signed during US occupation of Nicaragua, giving Colombia control over the area. Both nations are members of the Association of Caribbean States, Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Organization of American States, Organization of Ibero-American States and the United Nations.
On 22 July 1971 Salvador Allende and Alejandro Lanusse, the Presidents of Chile and Argentina, signed an arbitration agreement. This agreement related to their dispute over the territorial and maritime boundaries between them, and in particular the title to the Picton, Nueva and Lennox islands near the extreme end of the American continent, which was submitted to binding arbitration under the auspices of the United Kingdom government.
Guyana–Venezuela relations include diplomatic, economic and other interactions between the neighboring countries of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
The Silala or Siloli is an international river arising from springs in Bolivia, and flowing naturally into Chile.
Bofedales, known in some parts of Peru as oconales, are a type of wetland found in the Andes. They are a feature in the land use and ecology of high Andean ecosystems. They form in flat areas around ponds or streams and may be permanent or seasonal, and they can be man made or natural. Bofedales are associated with organic material in the soil and their green colour often contrasts with that of the drier surrounding landscape.
The Charaña Accord, also known as the Hug of Charaña or the Act of Charaña, is the name given to an unrealized treaty that was discussed between the dictators of Bolivia and Chile, Hugo Banzer and Augusto Pinochet respectively. These discussions took place mostly on the Bolivian train station of Charaña on February 8, 1975, and included the brief reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the two nations which had been severed on 1962 because of the Atacama border dispute which was to be solved via a Chilean proposal for the exchange of territories between Bolivia and Chile, with the former receiving a corridor to the Pacific Ocean which would provide it with access to the sea and Chile receiving an equivalent amount of territory from Bolivia along its border with Chile.
The Bolivia–Chile border is an international border of South America. It separates Bolivia from Chile along Cordillera Occidental on the western edge of the Altiplano Plateau. There is an ongoing dispute about the nature of Silala River and Chile's use of its waters.
Marcelo Gustavo Kohen is an Argentine international lawyer and academic specialised in the areas of international legal theory, territorial and border disputes, international adjudication, and peaceful settlement of international disputes. He is Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.
The Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute is a territorial dispute between Chile and Peru that started in the aftermath of the War of the Pacific and ended significantly in 1929 with the signing of the Treaty of Lima and in 2014 with a ruling by the International Court of Justice. The dispute applies since 2014 to a 37,610 km2 territory in the Chile–Peru border, as a result of the maritime dispute between both states.
The Alto Palena-Encuentro River border dispute was a territorial dispute between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile over the demarcation of the boundary between landmarks XVI and XVII of their common border in the valleys located north of General Vintter/Palena Lake, and was resolved on November 24, 1966, by the arbitral ruling of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.