Chile and Bolivia they came to a agreement on the status of the waters of the Silala riverindicated this Thursday the International Court of Justice (ICJ)which thus put an end to the legal dispute between the two countries.
According to the ICJ, during the proceedings in The Hague, the positions between the two South American countries approached the point of making it unnecessary for the highest jurisdiction of the United Nations system to issue one way or the other.
Thus, the court found by an overwhelming majority that in six of the eight points under discussion there were evident coincidences that eliminated the need for a pronouncement, since “there is no doubt” that the Silala is an international watercourse and that the parties agree to it.
On the remaining points, the ICJ rejected a complaint from Chile about Bolivia’s alleged breach of its obligation to cooperate, as well as another from Bolivia about access to the surface waters of Silala.
The position of the ICJ allowed the two countries to consider themselves favored by the ruling.
Pass the page
“The controversy over the nature and use of the Silala waters has concluded, and from now on, based on the Ruling, Bolivia will exercise the rights it has over the Silala waters,” Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs Rogelio said in a note. Mayta, who followed the hearing.
The agent (main representative) of Chile before the ICJ, Ximena Fuentes, considered that the ruling was “good”, because now the two countries could “turn the page” and deepen cooperation on water resources.
“The important thing is that the ICJ highlights how, thanks to the procedure, the nature of Bolivia’s responses changed, ending in Bolivia’s acceptance of the Chilean claim,” Fuentes said.
“The Court has indicated that what Chile came to seek, it has already obtained through the recognition of Bolivia, and for this reason it points out that it is not necessary for it to point it out,” he said.
Chile demanded that the ICJ declare the Silala as an international river and that as such is subject to international law of fair and reasonable use.
The Silala is born in bofedales (high altitude wetlands) in the Bolivian department of Potosí and on its way crosses the border with Chile.
The case reached the ICJ in 2016, when Chile asked that court to formally declare Silala an international watercoursesubject to specific regulations, to guarantee their rights over the use of that water resource in their territory.
Bolivia responded in 2018 with a counterclaim for the court to recognize his rights over the artificial flow of the river, due to the system of canals built to gather water from springs, and demanded that Chile pay compensation for the use of those resources.
The last hearings for the case were held in April of this year, when the parties made their arguments and had the opportunity to question each other.
In these hearings, the Bolivian agent before the ICJ, the diplomat Roberto Calzadilla, asked that Bolivian sovereignty be recognized over the “artificial flow” of the Silala waters in its territory and that “Chile does not have acquired rights” over that flow .
For the Bolivian delegation, the canals built on the Silala in its territory artificially increased the flow and therefore Chile cannot claim acquired rights for its access to those waters.
Chile claimed that the Bolivian exposure lacked a legal basis for making a difference between natural and artificial channels.
Diplomatic relations between the two countries have been broken since 1978, when the last attempt to negotiate failed. a Bolivian access to the Pacific Ocean.