Chile and Bolivia approach positions in the International Court of Justice for the waters of Silala but remain different

The trial lived its second day of oral arguments. It will continue until April 14, after which the judges will retire to deliberate a decision that will be final and expected by the end of 2022 or early 2023

Guardar
GRAF912. LA HAYA, 26/03/2018.- Llegada
GRAF912. LA HAYA, 26/03/2018.- Llegada de los magistrados a la sala de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ), donde hoy Bolivia abre la segunda ronda de alegatos orales del juicio que le enfrenta a Chile ante la CIJ por la demanda de salida al mar. EFE/David Morales Urbaneja

The trial in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) between Chile and Bolivia over the transboundary waters of Silala, which held its second day of oral arguments on Monday, has served to bring both countries closer positions on the use and status of water resources.

The representative of Bolivia to the ICJ, Roberto Calzadilla, asked before the judges “whether there is any genuine legal controversy” that should be resolved by the UN high court or if, on the contrary, the differences “are of such a nature that they could be resolved by joint studies.”

The Silala is a flow of water that springs from Bolivian Potosí springs and crosses the border into Chile in Antofagasta, one of the most arid regions on the planet. The use of this water resource has eroded relations between the two countries over the past twenty years, as Bolivia said in March 2016 that it would sue Chile before the ICJ, but the neighboring country came forward and filed the complaint three months later.

Throughout the written pleadings phase of the trial between 2016 and 2022, La Paz has assumed part of the first two points of Santiago's claims, that the Silala is an international river and that its sharing must be “equitable and reasonable”. Gone is the accusation of former President Evo Morales, who in July 2017 accused the neighboring country of “artificially” “diverting” water resources to its border.

Sede de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (Europa Press)

On the other hand, the representative of Chile to the ICJ, Ximena Fuentes, said last Friday that her country would not oppose Bolivia dismantling works on its territory, carried out by the Anglo-Chilean railway company Antofagasta-Bolivia Railway Company in the twenties of the 20th century.

Fuentes said that his country would accept the dismantling of the works even if it led to a reduction in the flow currently flowing into Chile.

La Paz's lawyer, Allain Pellet, welcomed Fuentes's statement, but indicated that Chile should then withdraw the third item of its lawsuit, in which Santiago says it is entitled to its current use of Silala.

In the absence of a change in demand, we strongly believe that Chile cannot demand to retain the Silala flow,” the lawyer added.

Throughout the oral arguments phase, one of the main points of friction has been the impact of the works carried out by Antofagasta-Bolivia Railway Company on the Bolivian part of Silala.

La Paz said Monday that Santiago underestimates “the impact of artificial piping and drainage mechanisms” of these works, since they would have caused an increase in flow of between 11% and 33%, according to scientific studies carried out by Bolivia, a circumstance from which Chile benefits without providing any compensation.

Aguas del Silala (REUTERS/David Mercado)

For this reason, Bolivia has claimed in its counterclaim “sovereignty over the artificial flow of Silala waters designed, improved or produced in its territory”.

For Santiago, these works have led to at most a 1% increase in water flow and there is no legal basis for Bolivia to claim exclusive sovereignty rights because “it is the same flow,” Chilean lawyer Alan Boyle said last Friday.

This percentage difference will be discussed next Thursday and Friday by cartographic experts called by both countries.

The representative of Bolivia explained that his country could use this extra flow “to restore some wetlands” in its territory, that is, damplands that would have been affected by the pipeline works.

UNSUCCESSFUL AGREEMENT

Chile revealed last Friday that the rapprochement of positions during the written pleadings phase led its country to offer Bolivia an agreement that would avoid the ICJ's pronouncement.

Bolivian representative Calzadilla replied yesterday that Chile “did not intend to negotiate an agreement”, but that “it was a 'take it or leave it' situation” so “it could hardly be a good-faith agreement.”

The trial will continue until April 14, after which the judges will retire to deliberate on a decision that will be final by the parties and expected by the end of 2022 or early 2023.

(By David Morales Urbaneja - EFE)

KEEP READING: