The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The Hague rules in favor of Chile in a dispute with Bolivia over the use of the waters of the Silala river

2022-12-02T01:13:22.265Z


Santiago should not compensate La Paz for the historical use it has made of the natural resource The President of Chile, Gabriel Boric, together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonia Urrejola (2d), and accompanied by different authorities from the La Moneda Palace, Santiago.Elvis González (EFE) The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) has agreed this Thursday with the arguments presented by Chile in its lawsuit against Bolivia over the Silala River, which rises in the


The President of Chile, Gabriel Boric, together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonia Urrejola (2d), and accompanied by different authorities from the La Moneda Palace, Santiago.Elvis González (EFE)

The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) has agreed this Thursday with the arguments presented by Chile in its lawsuit against Bolivia over the Silala River, which rises in the Bolivian municipality of Potosí and crosses the border into the Chilean region. from Antofagasta.

In 2016, the then Bolivian president, Evo Morales, threatened to sue his neighboring country before The Hague for "stealing" the waters of the Altiplano river, denying that it was an international river, and stopping its tributary to Chile.

Before these scenarios occurred, the second government of Michelle Bachelet sued La Paz before the ICJ in search of legal certainty about the international nature of the river waters and the right of both countries to the equitable and reasonable use of these.

During the trial, Bolivia recognized the international course of the Silala waters and the right of its equitable and reasonable use from its territory and also from Chile.

What the Bolivian offensive did was derive its argument from the alleged existence of an “artificial flow” versus a “natural flow”.

They alleged that the artificial flow, product of channels built in 1928 by the British company Ferrocarril Antofagasta Bolivia (FCAB) would have improved the volume of water to Chilean territory and claimed its sovereignty.

As the former chancellor of the Bachelet government, Heraldo Muñoz, explained in EL PAÍS, there is no distinction under international law between “natural flow” and “artificial flow”, and Bolivia did not have a legal basis to claim exclusive sovereignty in the alleged artificial part of the flow, as confirmed this morning by The Hague.

In reading the ruling, the ICJ held that modifications that increase the surface flow of a watercourse are not related to its characterization as an international watercourse.

"The Court indicates in this regard that the experts appointed by both parties agree that the waters of Silala, whether surface or underground, constitute a unitary set that flows from Bolivia to Chile and to a common mouth."

Bolivia's change of position during the six years of litigation caused the ICJ to leave the main aspects of the claim "without purpose", since there are currently no discrepancies regarding the fact that Silala is an international watercourse.

The Court found that both parties agree that Chile has a right to an equitable and reasonable use of the Silala waters, regardless of whether they are natural or artificial waters.

In addition, "Bolivia does not declare in this proceeding that Chile owes Bolivia compensation for the past uses of the Silala water," said Judge Joan Donoghue, president of the Court.

Chile managed to get Bolivia to accept four of its five demands.

Regarding the request that La Paz must cooperate and promptly notify the measures on Silala that may have adverse effects on shared water resources, the Court has indicated that this obligation is not yet part of customary international law, therefore it cannot be still claimed as such.

The Chilean president, Gabriel Boric, celebrated this afternoon from La Moneda the "solid, well-founded and categorical" ruling in favor of Chiole.

"Our country can rest easy with the Court's ruling, we have obtained the legal certainty that we sought and the disputed issues have been definitively resolved under international law in accordance with Chile's claims," ​​the president assured.

Without diplomatic relations since 1962, Bolivia sued Chile in 2014 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a sovereign access to the Pacific.

In 2018, by 12 votes in favor and 3 against, the judges ruled that Santiago “is not legally bound to do so, because none of the agreements or treaties signed by both countries over the years indicates so;

neither do other international resolutions indicate it”.

Subscribe here to the EL PAÍS America

newsletter

and receive all the latest news in the region.

Source: elparis

All news articles on 2022-12-02

You may like

News/Politics 2024-02-21T10:23:38.654Z

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-27T16:45:54.081Z
News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.