Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) - The Court rejects the preliminary objection raised by Chile and finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application fil

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org

Press Release
Unofficial

No. 2015/23
24 September 2015

Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)

The Court rejects the preliminary objection raised by Chile and finds that it has
jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by Bolivia on 24 April 2013

THE HAGUE, 24 September 2015. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, today delivered its Judgment on the preliminary objection

raised by Chile in the case concerning the Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean
(Bolivia v. Chile).

In its Judgment, which is final and without appeal, the Court

(1) Rejects, by fourteen votes to two, the preliminary objection raised by the Republic of
Chile;

(2) Finds, by fourteen votes to two, that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXXI of

the Pact of Bogotá, to entertain the Application filed by the Plurinational State of Bolivia on
24 April 2013.

The Court’s reasoning

The Court recalls that, in its Application, Bolivia seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court
on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá. Chile, on the other hand, argues in its preliminary

objection that the Court has no jurisdiction unde1 that provision to rule on the dispute submitted by
Bolivia. Citing Article VI of the Pact of Bogotá , it contends that the matters in dispute in the
present case, namely territorial sovereignty and the character of Bolivia’s access to the Pacific
Ocean, were settled by an arrangement set out in the 1904 Peace Treaty, and that they remain
governed by that Treaty. Bolivia responds that the sole subject-matter of the dispute is the
existence of an obligation incumbent upon Chile to negotiate in good faith Bolivia’s sovereign
access to the Pacific Ocean, and the breach of that obligation. According to Bolivia, the said
obligation, which derives from “agreements, diplomatic practice and . . . declarations attributable to

[Chile]” extending over more than a century, exists independently of the 1904 Peace Treaty.
Accordingly, in Bolivia’s view, the matters in dispute in the present case are not matters settled or

1
to matters already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award or by decision of an internationalied
court, or which are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty.” - 2 -

governed by the 1904 Peace Treaty, within the meaning of Article VI of the Pact of Bogotá, and the

Court has jurisdiction to consider them under Article XXXI thereof.

The Court observes that, on its face, the Application presents a dispute about the existence of
an obligation to negotiate sovereign access to the sea, and the alleged breach thereof. The Court
considers that, while it may be assumed that sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean is, in the end,
Bolivia’s goal, a distinction must be drawn between that goal and the related but distinct dispute

presented by the Application, which does not ask the Court to adjudge and declare that Bolivia has
a right to such access.

The Court recalls that, under Article VI of the Pact of Bogotá, if it were to find that, given
the subject-matter of the dispute as identified by it, the matters in dispute between the Parties are
matters “already settled by arrangement between the parties” or “governed by agreements or

treaties in force” at the date of signature of the Pact of Bogotá, namely 30 April 1948, it would lack
the requisite jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits. The Court notes that the relevant
provisions of the 1904 Peace Treaty do not expressly or impliedly address the question of Chile’s
alleged obligation to negotiate Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. In the Court’s
view, therefore, the matters in dispute are not matters “settled by arrangement between the parties,
or by arbitral award or by decision of an international court” or “governed by agreements or treaties

in force on the date of the conclusion of the [Pact of Bogotá]”, within the meaning of Article VI of
the Pact of Bogotá. Article VI thus does not bar the Court’s jurisdiction under Article XXXI of the
Pact of Bogotá and the preliminary objection to jurisdiction raised by Chile must accordingly be
dismissed.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Abraham; Vice-President Yusuf;
Judges Owada, Tomka, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja,
Sebutinde, Bhandari, Robinson, Gevorgian; Judges ad hoc Daudet, Arbour; Registrar Couvreur.

Judge B ENNOUNA appends a declaration to the Judgment; Judge CANÇADO T RINDADE

appends a separate opinion to the Judgment; Judge G AJA appends a declaration to the Judgment;
Judge ad hoc A RBOUR appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment.

*

A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No. 2015/2”. This press
release, the summary of the Judgment and its full text can be found on the Court’s website
(www.icj-cij.org), under the heading “Cases”.

___________

Note: The Court’s press releases do not constitute official documents.

___________ - 3 -

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities in

April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six
principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court has a
twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by
States (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and,
second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized United
Nations organs and agencies of the system. The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for a
nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.

Independent of the United Nations Secretariat, it is assisted by a Registry, its own international
secretariat, whose activities are both judicial and diplomatic, as well as administrative. The official
languages of the Court are French and English. Also known as the “World Court”, it is the only
court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.

The ICJ, a court open only to States for contentious proceedings, and to certain organs and
institutions of the United Nations system for advisory proceedings, should not be confused with the

other  mostly criminal  judicial institutions based in The Hague and adjacent areas, such as the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, an ad hoc court created by the
Security Council), the International Criminal Court (ICC, the first permanent international criminal
court, established by treaty, which does not belong to the United Nations system), the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon (STL, an international judicial body with an independent legal personality,
established by the United Nations Security Council upon the request of the Lebanese Government

and composed of Lebanese and international judges), or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA,
an independent institution which assists in the establishment of arbitral tribunals and facilitates
their work, in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1899).

___________

Information Department:

Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)