[ad_1]
Four experts in international law today said that Chile should withdraw from the Pact of Bogotá, a peaceful solution to international conflicts, saying that " was contrary to the country's higher interests " .
] In a letter published this 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 question the validity treaties ", in the context of the conflicts that Chile currently has with Bolivia in this court.
"Employed as a platform to question, in a manner that ignores the validity of treaties, that the Covenant no longer serves to protect the inherent peace status of respecting them," said and said that Chile, retired, "should specify that henceforth will badume the defense of its sovereignty directly ."
Chile currently faces in The Hague two disputes in front of Bolivia that he seeks that the court forces the southern country to negotiate and grant him sovereign access to the sea, that lost in a nineteenth century war.
Chile argues that all border issues with Bolivia were resolved in a treaty signed in 1904 which remains in force.
You may be interested in: [19459009
At the same time, the southern country sued its neighbor for the court to determine whether the waters Silala are an international river as it defends, or sources whose waters have been artificially diverted Chilean territory for more than a century, as maintained by Bolivia
The letter is signed by the former ambbadador and University of Chile José Rodríguez Elizondo University, the former secretary of the armed forces Gabriel Gaspar, the former ambbadador Eduardo Rodríguez and the former commander-in-chief of the Óscar Izurieta army.
In the text, they also emphasize that the Pact of Bogotá has never been an obstacle to the great powers, who have not ratified it and remember that it has even been withdrawn from Colombia, receiving country of its approval in 1948.
The signatories criticize the behavior of The Hague before the maritime demand of Bolivia, a country which, according to them, "constitutionalized an alleged right inalienable and imprescriptible on the territory that gives access to the Pacific Ocean", despite current treaties, turning it into an "international challenge".
"When the ICJ accepted this claim, it rejected the preliminary objections filed by Chile because they were resolved in a treaty, " a strategy without legal plausibility but likely to endanger the
They add that, moreover, the Court badumed the responsibilities of the United Nations Security Council, "in charge of international peace and security" .
]
The undersigned He recalls that Chile should have doubted "the jurisdiction of the ICJ " not included in the litigation Bolivia ", on the basis of Article 53 of its Statute and its jurisprudence."
After the rejection of the preliminary objections filed by Chile, "it was clear that the ICJ was about to to submit our sovereignty to the revision and that no judicial decision would liquidate the strategy of Bolivia ", they underline. Chile "had to better balance the resources of the law, with those of diplomacy and defensive deterrence" and announced that "our defense of the territorial heritage will use " the full force of history " and not just the strength of the legal argumentation. "
They also specify that" the technical request "on the nature of the Silala River to the ICJ" can not make us hostages sine die (permanent) from an instrument that was made to dvers or the greater interests of the country. "
" It is not a matter of doing a solitary breeder, reducing the problem to the issue of a document legalized before a notary, "they point out and indicate that the withdrawal of the Pact a political and diplomatic work of quality with detailed information to the main organs of the UN. "
According to him," the underlying issue is not adjective or procedural convenience, but substantial defense of our sovereignty, exercised in a framework of well-forged national unity ".
[ad_2]
Source link
