Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)

The government of Bolivia (plaintiff) filed proceedings in the International Court of Justice seeking to compel the government of Chile (defendant) to negotiate Bolivia’s access to the Pacific Ocean. Bolivia argued that Chile had committed itself, through agreements and diplomatic declarations, to reach an agreement with Bolivia to grant access to the sea and that Chile was failing to comply with its obligation to negotiate such an agreement. Bolivia relied on the fact that Chile had made several statements indicating a willingness to engage in negotiations and to listen to any proposals introduced by Bolivia. In support of its petition, Bolivia argued seven different legal grounds for compelling Chile to negotiate: (1) Chile was under bilateral agreements with Bolivia that required Chile to negotiate Bolivia’s access to the sea; (2) Chile was bound by diplomatic declarations and unilateral acts that implied an obligation to negotiate; (3) Chile acquiesced that it had an obligation to negotiate by not responding to Bolivia’s declarations regarding access to the sea; (4) Chile was estopped from denying its obligation to negotiate based on diplomatic statements by Chile; (5) Bolivia had legitimate expectations that Chile would negotiate an agreement for access to the ocean; (6) Chile was obligated under the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of the Organization of American States to settle the dispute through peaceful means; and (7) the resolutions of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States required that Chile and Bolivia enter into negotiations over the dispute.