[ad_1]
Four experts in international law today declared that Chile should withdraw from the Pact of Bogotá, a peaceful solution to international conflicts, on the grounds that "this was contrary to the best interests of the country".
Saturday in the newspaper El Mercurio, said that the aforementioned pact, whose highest expression is the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is used "as a platform to challenge the validity of treaties", in the context of disputes "Employed as a platform to question the validity of treaties, this pact no longer serves to protect the peace status inherent in their respect," they said and said that Chile When it will take his retirement, "he should specify that in the future he will directly badume the defense of his sovereignty".
Chile is currently the subject of two lawsuits in The Hague livia, a country that is asking the court to compel the southern country to negotiate and grant sovereign access to the sea, that he lost in a nineteenth century war.
Chile defends all border problems with Bolivia 1904, which remains in force
At the same time, the southern country is suing its neighbor for the Court to determine whether the waters of Silala are an international river, as it defends, or springs whose waters have been artificially diverted. The Chilean territory for over a century, as maintained by Bolivia.
The letter is signed by the former Ambbadador and University of Chile José Rodríguez Elizondo University, former Secretary of the Armed Forces Gabriel Gaspar, former Ambbadador Eduardo Rodríguez and the Former Commander-in-Chief of the Basque Navy Izurieta
In the text, they also emphasize that the Pact of Bogotá has never been a barrier against the great powers, that they do not have not ratified and Remember that Colombia has withdrawn from Colombia, the country where it was approved in 1948.
The signatories blame The Hague for its behavior in the face of maritime demand Bolivia, a country claiming to be an inalienable and imprescriptible right. the territory that gives access to the Pacific Ocean "," despite the current treaties, which makes it an "international challenge".
"When the ICJ accepted this request, it rejected the preliminary objections filed by Chile, a matter resolved in a treaty," supported a strategy without legal plausibility, but likely to endanger international peace, " they argue
They add that, moreover, the Court has badumed responsibilities of the United Nations Security Council "Who is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security."
The signatories emphasize that the Chile should have "in any way whatsoever, the jurisdiction of the ICJ" not appearing in the maritime dispute of Bolivia ", based on Article 53 of its Statute and its jurisprudence." [19659002] After the rejection of Chile's preliminary objections "It is clear that the ICJ was about to subject our sovereignty to review and that no judicial decision would liquidate Bolivia's strategy. They stress.
They argue that Chile "should have better balanced the resources of the law with those of diplomacy and deterrence". defensive "and to announce that" our defense of territorial heritage will use "the full force of history" and not just the strength of legal argumentation. "
They also declare that" the technical request "on the nature of the Silala River in the ICJ" can not become hostages sine die (permanent) of an instrument that has been made contrary to the highest interests of the country. "
" It is not a matter of lonely llanero, reducing the issue to the issuance of a legalized document before a notary, "they point out and indicate that withdrawing from the Covenant" requires quality political and diplomatic work, with detailed information to the main organs of the UN. "
opinion," the substantive issue is not about adjective or procedural convenience, but of substantial defense of our sovereignty, exercised in a framework of well-forged national unity. "
[ad_2]
Source link
