[ad_1]
Beatriz Layme / La Paz
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague may make a decision favorable or unfavorable to Bolivia on maritime claims. There is also the possibility that the judges issue a "Solomonic" decision, with different characteristics, so that neither party is affected.
Another possibility is that the Court may refrain from ruling on the merits of the dispute … These are some of the options for possible failures that The Hague may issue. The alternatives have been identified by experts in international law.
Bolivia filed a lawsuit five years ago (2013) against Chile for a sovereign exit from the Pacific coast. After concluding the process, Bolivians hope, hopefully, that the court will deliver its verdict, which could happen this month, according to press reports, although the data has not been confirmed by the media. national authorities.
In the lawsuit, Bolivia asks The Hague to oblige Chile to negotiate a sovereign exit to the sea because it has not honored its historic commitments and must now respect this obligation in good faith, promptly and formally, within a reasonable and effective time.
The proof is that in the military governments of Augusto Pinochet (Chile) and Hugo Banzer (Bolivia) the two countries were closer to an agreement, when the Abrazo de Charaña was signed , a treaty by which La Moneda Chile acknowledged the approaches that existed between the two states throughout history, but argued that such negotiations are not binding or sources of legal obligations.
It is in this context that experts in international law – consulted by Page Seven – have identified at least six possible sentence options from the Hague Court.
Winning or Losing
In international law, Karen Longaric argued that one of the alternatives was a verdict in favor of Bolivia, a decision that would require Chile to negotiate an exit sovereign towards the sea with La Paz.
The second option is for the Court to consider as unproven, on the part of Bolivia, that there have been unilateral acts and, consequently, Chile has not been able to do so. obligation to negotiate a sovereign exit. "It would be the worst for Bolivia," said diplomat Álvaro Del Pozo.
"Solomonic" Decision
Jurists point out that the ICJ may also opt for a "solomonic" output, but with different characteristics. "The Court always has salomonic departures, that is to say that it does not issue a 100% award in favor of one or the other, she is always trying to be balanced, she is not winning, "said internationalist Roxana Forteza. "The ICJ could declare that the nature and scope of the agreements advanced by Chile and Bolivia in recent years, the diplomatic practice and the declarations made by Chile favor a negotiation which harmonizes the interest of both parties."
Del Pozo said that to end the controversy, which lasts more than 100 years, judges could also grant Bolivia a "moral gain rather than legal, because the sentence would not enter the word" obligation But would encourage countries to come to a solution. "
Also, the expert indicated that international tribunals can apply the disaggregated nature of the application, that is to say, badyze the applications and many things" may declare in favor of them. a part and in others, on the other hand, it can have positive lines for the plaintiff and the defendant. "
Del Pozo explained that" in the negotiation, it can obviously correspond to a differentiated process, in which the parties can find other types of solutions, different from the request of Bolivia. "
Another option, according to Forteza states: "Sit down to negotiate, the decision will be in favor of negotiating and will only define the question of time and form, but not what will be the solutions between the parties." [19659002] The Hague will say, "Forteza added," that "at that time, the negotiation will be established and according to this modality, but it will not say" I will reach a tripartite exit or negotiate a territorial exchange for as many square kilometers. ""
Do not resolve the substantive issue
Longaric also noted that "the Court may be precluded from ruling on the merits of the dispute. Given the fact that the ICJ must base its decision on the law, it would be possible to state that there is no conventional legal source or sufficient evidence to enable it to rule on the merits of the petition filed by Bolivia. "This decision," said Longaric, "would be supported by Article 38 of the Hague Statute
According to Forteza, it is almost a fact that the ICJ will order Bolivia and Chile to sit down for negotiate, but the specialist specified that "this does not mean that Bolivia has gained a sovereign exit to the sea."
Require milestones at The Hague
- Announcement On March 23, 2013, President Evo Morales announced in his speech the Day of the Sea, who will lodge a complaint against Chile.
- Application In April 2014, the Government filed the maritime lawsuit against Chile at the ICJ. 19659023] Objection In July of the same year, La Moneda opposed the competition of The Hague The two countries presented their arguments
- Competition On September 24, 2015, the ICJ Is declared competent to settle the dispute submitted by Bolivia against Chile in bear from a trip to the sea. Continue the process.
- Allegations In March 2018, the set of pleadings was concluded, the final phase of the case, and now she is awaiting judgment.
- Press Release At the conclusion of the allegations, the President of the ICJ, Somali Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said: "Now the Court will withdraw to deliberate. parties will be informed of the date of the presentation of the judgment. "
Viewpoint
javier murillo Excuse
It is not serious to make comments on the basis of speculation, especially in such delicate matters.
However, Bolivia can present a positive scenario after the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the basis of what can be summarized as follows: first, the petition of Bolivia in its application is supported In the principle of in good faith, it is essential that States respect all circumstances.
Chile has undertaken, as has been demonstrated, by unilateral commitments and official documents exchanged in 1950 and 1975 to negotiate an agreement which would grant Bolivia a sovereign exit to the sea. [19659002] And can not retract, ignoring such commitments, without violating the guiding principle of international relations is in good faith. The Court is then called upon to judge and determine that Chile must comply with this obligation.
The possibility of a positive scenario following the decision is based on the consequence that the judges of the ICJ must show with the criteria that they issued in support of their decision of September 24, 2015, which, in time to reject Chile's preliminary objection of incompetence, established two fundamental premises: first, there is a pending territorial issue, since the object of Bolivia's application is 39, was not resolved by the 1904 Treaty and, secondly, the ICJ can not anticipate the final outcome of the negotiations, which already recognizes that such negotiations should take place, which can not be disconnected from their purpose to which they will be intended, that is to grant Bolivia sovereign access
There is therefore consistency in the foundations of the Bolivian trial, which the Court will undoubtedly appreciate in all its dimensions and depth, and in addition, the coherence in the historical attitude of Bolivian diplomacy, which has always been inspired by an unshakeable pacifist vocation and an attachment to dialogue and negotiation to set out its objectives and resolve its differences at the international level.
[ad_2]
Source link
