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

REPUBLIC OF CHILE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs

May 12th, 2015

H.E. Mr Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace

The Hague
The Netherlands

Sir,

ObUgation to Negotiate Attess to the Patifit Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)
Chile's Answer to Judge Owada'squestion concerning tite meaning of "sovereign access to the sea"

I have the honour to convey the response of the Republic ofChile to the question asked by Judge

Owada at the close of the oral hearings on Chile's Preliminary Objection, which was:

"ln the course of the present oral proceedings, as weil as in the written documents
submitted by the two sides, both the Applicant and the Respondent have been

referring to the expression 'sovereign access to the sea'. This is not a term of art
in general international law, though the Applicant and the Respondent have been
referring to this expression in describing either their own position or the position
of the other side. I should appreciate it if both of the Parties would define the

meaning of that term as they understand it, and explain the specifie contents of
that term as they use it for determining their position on jurisdiction of the Court."

The starting point must be Bolivia's Request for Relief, the relevant parts ofwhich are contained

in paragraphs 32(a) and 32(c) of its Application and 500(a) and 500(c) of its Memorial. There,
Bolivia refers to "a fully sovereign access to the Pacifie Ocean". The expression "fully sovereign"

is equally used in paragraphs 1,4, 13 and 30 of the Application.

In the Memorial, Bolivia indicated with greater precision what it means by "sovereign access to

the sea". At paragraph 410 it referred to "sovereign access to the sea for Bolivia, to be effected by
a transfer of territory to Bolivia from Chile" and in the following paragraph to "sovereign access

to the sea for Bolivia by the transfer of an area of the territory now held by Chile".

At paragraph 361 ofthe Memorial, Bolivia asserts that Chile agreed "to transfer territory to Bolivia
in order to grant it a sovereign access to the sea". At paragraph 445, Bolivia was particularly clear:

"According to Chile, negotiations between the two States could only beconsidered provided that
they would not lead to any territorial cession - which is to say, on the condition that they would

not involve any sovereign access to the sea."In the context of explaining its claim for a right to "sovereign access to the Pacifie Ocean", Bolivia

equally referred in the Memorial to "the cession to Bolivia of a sovereign coast" (paragraph 483),
"cession of territory" (paragraph 484) and "modification of the territorial status between the two
countries" (paragraph 486).

The meaning of the expression "sovereign access to the sea" as used by Chile in fonnulating its

objection to jurisdiction is the same as that used in its Application and Memorial. Chile
considers that in asking the Court to declare that Chile is under an obligation ''togrant Bolivia a
fully sovereign access to the Pacifie Ocean" (Request for Relief: Application, paragraph 32(c) and

Memorial, paragraphOO(c))Bolivia is claiming that Chile is under an obligation to transfer to
Bolivia sovereignty over coastal territory bathed by the Pacifie Ocean.

The significance of this for Chile's jurisdictional objection is that in Article II of the 1904 Peace
Treaty, Bolivia and Chile settled the allocationignty over territory between them, and in

Article VI ofthat same treaty provided that Chile would accord "in favour ofBolivia in perpetuity
the fullest and most unrestricted right of commercial transit in its territory and its Pacifie ports."
The 1904 Peace Treaty settled and govemed on 30 April 1948,just as it does now, that the access

to the Pacifiean that Bolivia has a right to is not sovereign access. Bolivia's Request for Relief
seeks an arder requiring Chile to agree to grant sovereign access to the Pacifie Ocean to Bolivia.
That would necessarily unsettle what was settled in and governed04 Peace Treaty, and

is therefore outside the Court's jurisdiction by force of Article VI of the Pact ofBogotâ.

Accept, Sir, the assurancesy highest consideration.

~
Felipe Bulnes \ \
J \
Agent of Chile