Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean

Last updated

Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean
International Court of Justice Seal.svg
Court International Court of Justice
Full case nameObligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)
Decided1 October 2018 (2018-10-01)
Citation(s) I.C.J. Reports 2015, p. 592
Transcript(s) Oral proceedings
Case opinions
The Republic of Chile did not undertake a legal obligation to negotiate a sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean for the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) was a case at the International Court of Justice. In the case, Bolivia petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus obligating Chile to negotiate with Bolivia to restore Bolivia's access to the Pacific Ocean, which it had lost to Chile in 1879 during the War of the Pacific. In 2018, the court rejected Bolivia's arguments, finding that Chile was under no such obligation.

Contents

Background

Map showing 1879 border changes after the War of the Pacific, with the territory under dispute bordered in black Pacifico1879.svg
Map showing 1879 border changes after the War of the Pacific, with the territory under dispute bordered in black

When Bolivia gained independence from Spain in 1825, it controlled the Atacama Desert and thus had direct access to the Pacific Ocean. [1] [2] [3] As a result of disputes over control and taxation of natural resources, Bolivia and Peru went to war with Chile in 1879. [1] [2] During the ensuing War of the Pacific, Bolivia lost territory to Chile, including its entire coastline, and the war ended with the Treaty of Ancón and the Treaty of Valparaíso. [2] [3] [4] [5]

In the Treaty of Ancón, Chile and Peru agreed that a plebiscite would be used to determine territorial control, and that neither nation could cede contested territory to a third without the consent of both. [1] In the Treaty of Valparaíso, Bolivia and Chile agreed that Chile would temporarily administer territory taken from Bolivia, and that Bolivia had a right to freely trade at Chilean ports. [1] In 1895, Chile and Bolivia agreed to the Treaty on the Transfer of Territories, under which Chile would sell Tacna and Arica to Bolivia. However, this treaty was never implemented, as neither of the nations' congresses approved the agreement. [1] In the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Bolivia and Chile agreed that Antofagasta, the territory taken by Chile during the war, would be Chilean, and, in exchange, a railroad would be constructed, at Chile's expense, between Arica and La Paz. [1] [2] [3] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Also, Bolivia would be granted free trade rights at Chile's Pacific ports and allowed to establish customs facilities in them. [1] [3] [8]

Since the treaty, Bolivia has attempted to obtain some form of sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, and both nations have engaged in occasional negotiations in attempts to resolve the issue. [2] [11] [12] In 1920, the representatives of the two nations met in La Paz. At this meeting, Chilean representatives said that they were "willing to seek that Bolivia acquire its own access to the sea, ceding to it an important part of that zone in the north of Arica and of the railway line which is within the territories subject to the plebiscite stipulated in the Treaty of Ancón." [1] [8] In 1926, Miguel Cruchaga, the Chilean ambassador to the United States, discussed the possibility of dividing the contested territory between Bolivia, Chile, and Peru with Frank B. Kellogg, the United States Secretary of State. [1] After this, Bolivia sought resolution to the disagreement at the League Of Nations, despite objections from Chile, which sought unilateral negotiations. [8] In 1950, the two nations agreed to enter into formal negotiations over the issue. However, instead they discussed improvements to the current arrangement. [8] In the early 1960s, both countries sought negotiations, but they did not take place. [8] In 1975 and 1976, Chile and Bolivia agreed to a territorial swap with the Act of Charaña  [ es ], but, under the terms of the Treaty of Ancón, this would require the approval of Peru. Peru instead proposed a region of shared sovereignty between the three nations, which was rejected by both Chile and Bolivia. [8] In 1978, Bolivia cut diplomatic ties with Chile, as a result of the lack of progress in negotiations. [1] [8] Since 1978, the two nations have not had full diplomatic relations; maintaining relations at a consular level. [1] [7] [8] [11] [13] In recent years, unsuccessful attempts have been made by both nations to negotiate a resolution, at various venues. [1]

Access to the Pacific Ocean has long been an issue in Bolivian politics. [13] Despite lacking a coastline, Bolivia still has a navy, which was founded in 1963, and Bolivians annually celebrate the Day of the Sea. [1] [14] The Bolivian president, Evo Morales, made Bolivia's access to the ocean a key issue for his administration. [15] [16] He also used it to bolster his reelection efforts. [16] When Pope Francis visited Bolivia in 2015, he called for dialogue between the two nations, saying, "Dialogue is indispensable. Instead of raising walls, we need to be building bridges." [17]

Case and arguments

In 2013, Bolivia suspended ongoing negotiations and brought a petition against Chile before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). [4] [11] [18] [19] In the petition, Bolivia asked that the ICJ find that Chile was obligated to negotiate with Bolivia towards granting Bolivia sovereign access to the sea. [3] [10] [20] In 2014, Chile raised preliminary objections to the court's jurisdiction, citing Article VI of the Pact of Bogotá, which prohibited ICJ proceedings on matters agreed upon prior to its agreement in 1948. [3] [8] [21] Chile argued that the 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship settled all issues regarding the border, [2] [3] [11] [21] [22] [23] and that, while Bolivia had a right to non-sovereign access through Chilean territory, it had no right to sovereign access. [1] Bolivia contended that the issue was an obligation independent of the treaty. [1] [3] [21] Chile countered that the issue was one of territorial sovereignty. [21] According to Zach Kleiman, the ruling on the preliminary objection would be determined by the definition of the case's subject matter. [21] On 24 September 2015, the court found that it did have jurisdiction to hear the case, rejecting Chile's preliminary objection, [3] [4] [5] [21] [24] and finding that the case was in respect of an obligation separate from the Treaty of Peace and Friendship. [21] The court also reframed the complaint, limiting it solely to an obligation to negotiate without specifying the goal. [3] [20] Judge Gaja voted against the majority opinion's findings and, in a separate declaration, proposed that matters that had been settled could become unsettled through subsequent conduct. [3] [25] [26] He stated that a determination on this issue would not be appropriate at the preliminary stage. [26]

Bolivia argued that both nations were obligated to negotiate by their prior statements, [8] [21] basing parts of its argument on ICJ precedents, including Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) and Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain). [8] Bolivia also argued that it had a right to coastal access because of the harmful economic effects of being landlocked. [21] Zach Kleiman says that trade to and from Bolivia is much slower and more expensive than equivalent trade in Chile, and logistical costs are 31% higher than the average in the region. [21] He also observed that in previous cases, such as Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) and Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France) , the court found that obligations were created through the unilateral conduct of officials. [21]

Outcome and results

On the Sunday preceding the decision, Catholic bishops in both countries asked congregants to accept the court's decision. [2] [27] In expectation of the decision, Bolivians gathered in public spaces across the country to watch the decision be read out on large screens erected for this purpose. [14] [15] [28] On 1 October 2018, a twelve-judge majority ruled that Chile did not have an obligation to negotiate with Bolivia towards an access to the Pacific Ocean, rejecting Bolivia's complaint and all eight of its arguments. [2] [9] [27] However, the court did not rule on which nation rightfully controlled the disputed territory. [23] The court found that in none of the statements or actions of either country did the two countries show an intent to be legally bound. [8] Alonso Dunkelberg suggests that the court ruled against Bolivia to avoid the possible precedent it would set "if passage of time in longstanding, stalemated disputes can change the way in which certain traditional terms are read." [8] He further suggested that Bolivia could also have brought complaints about Chile's violations of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which it has previously raised at the Latin American Integration Association, [8] and raised the possibility of Bolivia negotiating with Peru, which has previously agreed to treaties expanding Bolivia's rights to trade at the Peruvian coast. [8]

While the court ruled against Bolivia, Abdulqawi Yusuf, president of the court, said that the ruling "should not be understood as precluding the parties from continuing their dialogue and exchanges, in a spirit of good neighborliness, to address the issues relating to the landlocked situation of Bolivia, the solution to which they have both recognized to be a matter of mutual interest." [27] Evo Morales interpreted this as a "call to continue with the dialogue" and promised that Bolivia "will never give up" its pursuit of access to the Pacific Ocean. [11] [27] In response to the decision, Sebastián Piñera, the president of Chile, said that Morales "made us waste five years which could have been spent building a healthy relationship between the two countries." [18] He also praised the court's decision, saying, "The court has done justice and has put things in their place, establishing clearly and categorically that Chile has never had any obligation to negotiate an exit to the sea." [29]

After the decision, Morales continued efforts to begin negotiations with Chile. [19] [30] However, Bolivia also planned to decrease its dependence on Chilean ports by transitioning trade to Peruvian ports. [19]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geography of Chile</span> Overview of the geography of Chile

The geography of Chile is extremely diverse as the country extends from a latitude of 17° South to Cape Horn at 56° and from the ocean on the west to Andes on the east. Chile is situated in southern South America, bordering the South Pacific Ocean and a small part of the South Atlantic Ocean. Chile's territorial shape is among the world's most unusual. From north to south, Chile extends 4,270 km (2,653 mi), and yet it only averages 177 km (110 mi) east to west. Chile reaches from the middle of South America's west coast straight down to the southern tip of the continent, where it curves slightly eastward. Diego Ramírez Islands and Cape Horn, the southernmost points in the Americas, where the Pacific and Atlantic oceans meet, are Chilean territory. Chile's northern neighbors are Peru and Bolivia, and its border with Argentina to the east, at 5,150 km (3,200 mi), is the world's third-longest. The total land size is 756,102 km2 (291,933 sq mi). The very long coastline of 6,435 km (3,999 mi) gives it the 11th largest exclusive economic zone of 3,648,532 km2 (1,408,706 sq mi).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign relations of Bolivia</span> Overview of relations

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landlocked country</span> Country with no ocean coastline

A landlocked country is a country that does not have territory connected to an ocean or whose coastlines lie on endorheic basins. There are currently 44 landlocked countries and 4 landlocked de facto states. Kazakhstan is the world's largest landlocked country while Ethiopia is the world’s most populous landlocked country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Atacama Desert border dispute</span> Border dispute between Bolivia and Chile

The Atacama Desert border dispute is a dispute between Chile and Bolivia that stems from the transfer of the Bolivian Coast and the southern tip of Peru to Chile in the 19th century through the Treaty of Ancón with Peru and the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1904 between Chile and Bolivia after the War of the Pacific (1879–1883). The dispute is considered to be ongoing because Bolivia still claims a sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The conflict takes its name from the Atacama Desert on which lies the disputed territory. Due to a transfer of land to both Argentina and Chile during the Chilean annexation of the Bolivian coast in 1879, the Puna de Atacama dispute—this spin-off dispute was settled in 1899.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arica y Parinacota Region</span> Region of Chile

The Arica y Parinacota Region is one of Chile's 16 first order administrative divisions. It comprises two provinces, Arica and Parinacota. It borders Peru's Department of Tacna to the north, Bolivia's La Paz and Oruro departments to the east and Chile's Tarapacá Region to the south. Arica y Parinacota is the 5th smallest, the 3rd least populous and the 6th least densely populated of the regions of Chile. Arica is the region's capital and largest city.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bolivian Navy</span> Military unit

The Bolivian Navy is a branch of the Armed Forces of Bolivia. As of 2008, the Bolivian Navy had approximately 5,000 personnel. Although Bolivia has been landlocked since the War of the Pacific and its 1904 peace treaty, Bolivia established a River and Lake Force in January 1963 under the Ministry of National Defense. It consisted of four boats supplied from the United States and 1,800 personnel recruited largely from the Bolivian Army. The Bolivian Navy was renamed the Bolivian Naval Force in January 1966, but it has since been called the Bolivian Navy as well. It became a separate branch of the armed forces in 1963. Bolivia has large rivers which are tributaries to the Amazon which are patrolled to prevent smuggling and drug trafficking. Bolivia also maintains a naval presence on Lake Titicaca, the highest navigable lake in the world, which the country shares with Peru.

International law is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally recognized as binding between states. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights. Scholars distinguish between international legal institutions on the basis of their obligations, precision, and delegation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute</span> Overview of the maritime dispute between Chile and Peru

Peru v Chile is 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chile–Peru relations</span> Bilateral relations

Chilean-Peruvian relations refers to the historical and current bilateral relationship between the adjoining South American countries of the Republic of Chile and the Republic of Peru. Peru and Chile have shared diplomatic relations since at least the time of the Inca Empire in the 15th century. Under the Viceroyalty of Peru, Chile and Peru had connections using their modern names for the first time. Chile aided in the Peruvian War of Independence by providing troops and naval support.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bolivia–Chile relations</span> Bilateral relations

International relations between the Republic of Chile and the Plurinational State of Bolivia have been strained ever since independence in the early 19th century because of the Atacama border dispute. Relations soured even more after Bolivia lost its coast to Chile during the War of the Pacific and became a landlocked country. Chile and Bolivia have maintained only consular relations since 1978, when territorial negotiations failed and Bolivia decided to sever diplomatic relations with Chile. However, in spite of straining relationship, Chile and Bolivia still have economic treaties supporting tourism and cooperation; therefore, trading between two nations is not affected by the territorial dispute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arica Province (Peru)</span>

Arica was a historical province of Peru, which existed between 1823 and 1883. It was populated by pre-Hispanic peoples for a long period of time before Spanish colonisation in the early 16th century saw the transformation of a small town into a thriving port. Trade in both gold and silver was facilitated through Arica after the precious metals were first extracted from the Potosí silver mines of Bolivia. Following the War of the Pacific, the province was transferred to Chile and became an official Chilean territory in 1929.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Litoral Department</span>

The Department of the Litoral, also known as the Atacama Department and commonly known as the Bolivian coast, was the description of the extent of the Pacific coast of the Atacama Desert included in the territory of Bolivia from its inception in 1825 until 1879, when it was lost to Chile.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1904)</span> 1904 border demarcation treaty between Chile and Bolivia

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1904 between Chile and Bolivia was signed in Santiago de Chile on October 20, 1904, to delineate the boundary through 96 specified points between Cerro Zapaleri and Cerro Chipe and to regulate the relations between the two countries 20 years after the end of the War of the Pacific.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chilean occupation of Peru</span> Chilean occupation of Peru (1879–1883)

The Chilean occupation of Peru began on November 2, 1879, with the beginning of the Tarapacá campaign during the War of the Pacific. The Chilean Army successfully defeated the Peruvian Army and occupied the southern Peruvian territories of Tarapacá, Arica and Tacna. By January 1881, the Chilean army had reached Lima, and on January 17 of the same year, the occupation of Lima began.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bolivia–Peru relations</span> Bilateral relations

Bolivia–Peru relations refers to the current and historical relationship between Bolivia and Peru. Both nations are members of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, Group of 77, Organization of American States, Organization of Ibero-American States and the United Nations.

The consequences of the War of the Pacific were profound and numerous in the countries involved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arica Department</span>

The Arica Department was a territorial division of Chile that existed between 1884 and 1929. It was ceded by the Treaty of Ancón in 1883 and placed under military administration, and then created on the 31st of October 1884, as one of the three departments of the Tacna Province, and was returned to Peru at midnight on the 28th of August 1929, under the terms agreed upon in the Treaty of Lima of the same year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charaña Accords</span> Unrealized 1975 treaty

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.

<i>Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala</i> International law case by Chile against Bolivia

Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala is 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." Chile presented the case in 2016 while the Bolivian case against Chile, Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean, was still ongoing. According to France 24 the case came as a surprise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute</span>

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.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Rossi, Christopher (2017-02-01). "A Case Ill Suited for Judgment: Constructing 'A Sovereign Access to the Sea' in the Atacama Desert". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 48 (2): 28.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Landlocked Bolivia's request for Chile to discuss ocean access rejected by UN". The Guardian. 2018-10-01. ISSN   0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Surabhi, Ranganathan (July 2016). "The 2015 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice". American Journal of International Law. 110 (3): 504–525. doi:10.1017/S0002930000016924. S2CID   152225393.
  4. 1 2 3 "UN court to hear Bolivia-Chile case". BBC. 2015-09-24. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  5. 1 2 "Bolivia says it's preparing new legal action against Chile". www.efe.com. 2017-03-23. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-16.
  6. ↑ Cocker, Isabel (2017-10-30). "Chile made 'secret offer' to Bolivia in sea dispute". The Santiago Times. Archived from the original on 2019-04-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  7. 1 2 "World court to rule on Bolivia sea row with Chile". France 24. 2018-09-28. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dunkelberg, Alonso (2019). "Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)". American Journal of International Law. 113 (2): 347–353. doi:10.1017/ajil.2019.9. ISSN   0002-9300. S2CID   151065236.
  9. 1 2 Kennedy, Merrit (2018-10-01). "Top U.N. Court Dashes Landlocked Bolivia's Hopes Of Ocean Access". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  10. 1 2 Fox-Decent, Evan; Criddle, Evan J. (2019). "Mandatory Multilateralism". American Journal of International Law. 113 (2): 272–325. doi:10.1017/ajil.2019.3. ISSN   0002-9300. S2CID   229167585.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 "Bolivia can't force Chile to negotiate on sea access, UN court rules". DW.COM. 2018-10-01. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  12. ↑ "UN court rules against Bolivia in dispute with Chile over sea access". France 24. 2018-10-01. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  13. 1 2 Garrison, Cassandra; Ramos, Daniel (2018-09-27). "World Court ruling on Bolivia sea access could force Chile to..." Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  14. 1 2 "A court sets back Bolivia's quest to reclaim part of Chile's coast". The Economist. 2018-10-06. ISSN   0013-0613. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  15. 1 2 Millan Lombrana, Laura (2018-10-01). "Landlocked Bolivia Dealt Blow in Fight for Access to Sea". Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  16. 1 2 "UN court rejects Bolivia's bid for sea access via Chile". The Telegraph. 2018-10-01. ISSN   0307-1235. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  17. ↑ "Pope Francis urges dialogue on Bolivia-Chile sea dispute". DW.COM. 2015-07-09. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  18. 1 2 "UN court rules against Bolivia in sea spat". 2018-10-01. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  19. 1 2 3 "Morales plans talks with Chile after ICJ ruling setback". France 24. 2018-10-09. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  20. 1 2 Solomon, Solon (2013). "The Case of Bolivia v. Chile in an Era of Transforming Sovereignty". Florida Journal of International Law. 25: 331 – via HeinOnline. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Kleiman, Zach J. (2016). "The Long, Not-So Pacific Struggle for the Coast: A Border Dispute between Chile and Bolivia". Law and Business Review of the Americas. 22: 247 – via HeinOnline. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  22. ↑ Haynes, Danielle (2018-10-01). "U.N. court rules in favor of Chile in sea dispute with Bolivia". UPI. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  23. 1 2 "Chile cannot be forced to negotiate sea access with Bolivia, rules ICJ". The Santiago Times. 2018-10-01. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  24. ↑ "UN court to hear Bolivia-Chile dispute". DW.COM. 2015-09-24. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  25. ↑ Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015, p. 592 Archived 2019-05-16 at the Wayback Machine
  26. 1 2 Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Preliminary Objection, Declaration of Judge Gaja Archived 2019-05-16 at the Wayback Machine
  27. 1 2 3 4 Corder, Mike (2018-10-01). "UN court rejects Bolivia's Pacific Ocean access case". AP NEWS. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  28. ↑ Nugent, Ciara (2018-10-03). "The History Behind Bolivia's Fight to Get to the Ocean". Time. Archived from the original on 2019-05-31. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  29. ↑ "'Justice done' by ICJ on Bolivia claim: Chile president". France 24. 2018-10-01. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
  30. ↑ van der Berg, Stephanie; Laing, Aislinn (2018-10-01). "World Court: Chile not forced to negotiate over Bolivia sea access". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-05-16. Retrieved 2019-05-17.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.