Skip to content

Silala River: International Court of Justice in The Hague announces verdict to close dispute between Chile and Bolivia

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest jurisdiction of the United Nations system, will announce its ruling on the dispute between Chili Y bolivian for the use of the waters of the silala riverto close a bitter bilateral controversy that has been dragging on since 2016.

The silala It is a river that originates in bofedales (altitude wetlands) in the Bolivian department of potosi and on its way it crosses the border with Chiliwhich is why it is considered an international watercourse, subject to specific regulations.

LOOK: Where is Silala and why does Bolivia dispute it with Chile?

The case reached the ICJ in 2016when Chili asked that court to declare the silala formally as an international watercourse, to guarantee their rights over the use of that water resource in their territory.

bolivian responded in 2018 with a counterclaim before the ICJ to ask the court to recognize their rights over the artificial flow of the river, due to the system of canals built to collect water from springs, and demanded that Chile pay compensation for the use of those resources.

LOOK: The Silala River and the last border disputes between Chile and Bolivia

In that same 2018, the ICJ had rejected allegations of bolivian to force Chili to negotiate an exit to the sea for the Bolivians.

Arguments on the table

The last hearings for the case of silala they were carried out in April of this year, when the parties formulated their arguments and had the opportunity to question the other party.

In these hearings, the agent (main representative) of Bolivia before the ICJ, the diplomat Roberto Calzadilla, asked the ICJ to declare Bolivian sovereignty over the “artificial flow” of the waters of the silala in its territory, and that “Chile does not have vested rights” over that flow of water.

For the Bolivian delegation, the canals built on the Silala in its territory artificially increased the flow, and therefore Chile cannot allege acquired rights for access to those waters.

For his part, Chile’s agent, Ximena Fuentes, asked the ICJ to reject Bolivia’s argumentsay alleged that the Bolivian exposure lacks a legal basis when making a difference between natural and artificial causes.

Chile insists on the validity of customary law (unwritten rules but whose application became habitual due to its repetition over time) in the case of the waters of the silalawhich it considers an international watercourse.

Fuentes had also asked the ICJ that expresses that bolivian It is obliged to take measures to avoid water pollution, as well as to cooperate and “timely notify Chile” about measures that may have “an adverse effect on shared aquifer resources.”

“Clarity” of the ruling

The clearing of the canals in Bolivian territory -which affected the bofedales of the region- would have a significant impact on the flow of the silala.

For this reason, Bolivian Foreign Minister Rogelio Mayta announced in April that his country expects “clarity” in the ICJ ruling.

“We have stated that we want to maintain and restore that ecosystem [los bofedales]seriously damaged by these channels”, but with this “Chile could accuse us” in a lawsuit, said the head of Bolivian diplomacy.

Therefore, “we have asked the Court for clarity” in the ruling, he added.

The region of Potosí, on the border with Chile, remains awaiting the decision of the international court, according to what the influential civil organization Comité Cívico Potosinista (Comcipo) pointed out this week.

Ricardo Ramos, leader of Comcipo, affirmed that Potosí, in advance, “has determined to reject any decision issued by The Hague against the Bolivian State and against the Potosí territory and the silala”.

However, he did not explain what actions they will take in the event of a ruling adverse to Bolivia.

Source: Elcomercio

Share this article:
globalhappenings news.jpg
most popular