## Facts

- Bolivia lost its coastal territory to Chile following the War of the Pacific (1879–1883).
- The 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship confirmed Chile’s sovereignty over the former Bolivian coastal province “absolutely and in perpetuity,” while granting Bolivia transit-related arrangements.
- Across the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the States engaged intermittently in diplomatic exchanges about Bolivia’s landlocked status and possible sea access, including discussions in 1920, a 1950 exchange of notes, the 1975 “Charaña” process, initiatives in the 1980s, the 2000 Algarve Declaration, and the 2006 “13-Point Agenda.”
- In 2013, Bolivia instituted proceedings alleging that Chile had a separate obligation (independent of the 1904 treaty) to negotiate in good faith and effectively toward an agreement granting Bolivia fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.
- Bolivia invoked as sources of the alleged obligation: bilateral instruments and diplomatic practice, Chilean unilateral declarations, acquiescence/estoppel/legitimate expectations, and general obligations of peaceful settlement under the U.N. Charter and OAS Charter, supported by OAS General Assembly resolutions.
- Chile denied any legal obligation to negotiate sovereign access, characterizing the record as political dialogue and emphasizing the finality of the 1904 settlement.
- The Court exercised jurisdiction under the Pact of Bogotá; it rejected Chile’s preliminary jurisdictional objection in 2015 and proceeded to judgment on the merits in 2018.

## Issues

1. Whether Chile undertook a legally binding obligation to negotiate with Bolivia, in good faith and effectively, to reach an agreement granting Bolivia fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.
2. Whether any alleged obligation could be established through (a) bilateral instruments, (b) Chile’s unilateral declarations, (c) acquiescence, estoppel, or legitimate expectations, or (d) general duties of peaceful settlement and OAS resolutions.
3. Whether the cumulative effect of a long course of negotiations, statements, and diplomatic practice could create such a legal obligation absent express intent to be bound.

## Decision

- The ICJ held that Chile was not under a legal obligation to negotiate Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.
- The Court rejected each proffered basis for the alleged obligation, including bilateral instruments, unilateral acts, acquiescence/estoppel/legitimate expectations, and general peaceful-settlement norms and OAS resolutions.
- Because no such obligation existed, the Court found no breach by Chile.
- The Court stated that its judgment did not prevent the parties from continuing dialogue and exchanges, and that meaningful negotiations could occur if both States were willing.

## Legal Principles

- A binding obligation to negotiate requires clear evidence, in text or conduct, that a State intended to assume a legal commitment; expressions of political willingness to discuss a matter are insufficient.
- Unilateral declarations may create legal obligations only when stated in clear and specific terms and accompanied by an intention to be legally bound; general statements of openness to dialogue do not meet that standard.
- Estoppel requires a clear and unambiguous representation of a legal position, reliance by the other State, and resulting detriment; absent a clear legal representation, estoppel does not arise.
- “Legitimate expectations,” without a specific legal commitment, do not by themselves generate binding international obligations.
- General duties to settle disputes peacefully (including under the U.N. Charter and regional instruments) do not compel States to negotiate a particular modality of settlement or to reach a predetermined substantive outcome.
- Recommendatory resolutions of an international organization do not, without more, create a specific bilateral legal obligation to negotiate a particular result.

## Conclusion

The ICJ concluded that a century of diplomatic contacts concerning Bolivia’s landlocked situation did not establish that Chile accepted a legally enforceable duty to negotiate sovereign sea access, distinguishing political engagement and recommendations from binding international commitments.


Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bol. v. Chile), 2018 I.C.J. 507 (Oct. 1)