Written reply of Bolivia to the question put by Judge Owada at the public sitting held on the afternoon of 8 May 2015

ESTADOPLURINACIONALDEBOLIVIA

Embajada La Haya - Paises Bajos

Bolivia's Response to the Question of Judge Owada

Bolivia has the honour herewith to submit its response to the question of Judge Owada on

defining the meaning of the term "sovereign access to the sea" and determining the specifie

content of that term as used for determining its position on the jurisdiction of the Court.

With regard to the relevance of this question to the jurisdiction of the Court, Bolivia observes

that its case on the merits is that Chile has repeatedly agreed to negotiate Bolivia's sovereign

access to the Pacifie Ocean to resolve the problem of its landlocked situation. To the extent

that the meaning ofthat term and its specifie content can be defmed, it is necessary to determine

the understanding of the parties in the successive agreements they have concluded. The

existence and specifie content of the parties' agreement, Bolivia respectfully submits, is clearly

not a matter for determination at the preliminary stage of proceedings, and must instead be

determined at the merits stage of proceedings.

For the purposes of jurisdiction, it is sufficient to note that the agreement to negotiate, and the

final result of such negotiations, are two distinct and separate matters, as recognized in the

Court's jurisprudence. 1 The hypothetical modification of the 1904 Treaty at sorne point in the

future is a matterof speculation that isclearly not at issue in this case. Furthermore, the parties

have repeatedly agreed that granting Bolivia's sovereign access to the Pacifie Ocean is a matter

independent of the 1904Treaty and that it does not require any innovation thereof.

1
Gabcikovo-NagymarosProject(Hzmgary /Slovakia),Judgment,l.C.J.Reports1997,p.7,para.141. ESTADOPLURINACIONALDEBOLIVIA

Embajada La Haya - Paises Bajos

In this regard, Bolivia reiterates once more that its case on the merits is not about the precise

modalities or specifie content of sovereign access to the sea, since that is a matter to be agreed

bythe parties, negotiating in good faith. Itrecognizes only that based on the existing agreement

to negotiate, such sovereign access may be achieved by a modality to be specified by a future

agreement among the parties.

The broad understanding of the parties as to the definition of "sovereign access to the sea", as

reflected in their successive agreements to negotiate and the various proposais to find a

solution, is that Chile must grant Bolivia its own access to the sea with sovereignty in

conformity with international law.