Wooden Clothes Drying Frame Plans

Violations and abuses of

While the Bolivian government seeks, analyzes and evaluates the legal elements that could be used to support the lawsuit to be brought against Chile before international tribunals, it is appropriate to summarize the violations of Chile to the Treaty of 1904 and other abuses committed by this country against Bolivian territorial sovereignty.

Chile has repeatedly violated the 1904 Treaty because it has ensured ongoing compliance with the freedom of movement granted to Bolivia in the agreement (Article 6) and because it kept alive the Arica-La Paz railway, which is precisely, the main compensation received Bolivia exchange for their rich and unique coast (art. 3).

The free movement of Bolivia by land and Chilean ports has been interrupted and hampered on numerous occasions. In 1933, during the war of Chaco, Chile prevented the passage of war material that Bolivia had purchased for the contest, which generated a high cost in lives and money to the Bolivians, who had to divert this material from Peruvian ports.

In 1998 and 2003, Chile awarded the concession for the management of the ports of Arica and Antofagasta, and delegating to private companies, the obligation to guarantee the free movement of Bolivia by those ports. This is unprecedented in international law, has generated large losses Bolivian trade due to constant strikes of dock workers in two ports.

also the planting of landmines in the border provided by the Chilean government in the late 70's and their slow retreat in recent years, seriously question the scope of the right of free passage granted to Bolivia.

Moreover, the cessation of the Arica-La Paz is no less than a flagrant violation of the Convention signed by both countries on June 27, 1905, which establishes the obligation to maintain perpetual traffic of that railway line and is also a breach of the purpose for which the Treaty was conceived in 1904, as it relates to the construction of the railroad (Art. 3), which undoubtedly was to provide a means Bolivia effectively giving access to the sea.

addition to these violations, Chile has profited from free of water Bolivia's Silala Lauca since 1908 and since 1962, which is a serious affront to the rights of Bolivia. In the case of Chile because Silala springs channeled into its territory during the water that comes from the aquifers located in Bolivia and in the case of Lauca River, because Chile decided to divert the course of its waters that originate in Chilean territory, but upon entering Bolivia recorded much lower volumes to 50%, as it should be according to the Declaration of Montevideo on shared waters, signed by both countries in 1933.

All of the violations and abuses that constitute the main legal arguments having to sue Bolivia Chile can serve to enforce the obligations contained in the Treaty of 1904, its complementary agreements and multilateral conventions apply. However, in legal terms, these arguments are not enough to claim an International Tribunal requiring Chile to grant us territorial sovereignty.

Note: The views expressed are the opinion of the author and do not reflect the position of the Government of Bolivia.

Bestfriend Rings From Claires

Save Bosawás ..... Nicaragua is to save !!!!!

The National Youth Movement, committed to the protection of the Reserve Biofera Bosawás express that it is time to take conciensa because the reservation is being completely destroyed and we can not let the lung of Central America and heritage Nicaraguan such as Bosawás destruila should not because it is the buffer zone to the effects of greenhouse gases and climate change.

The youth must focus on protecting our resources and recent studies indicate that the reservation has lost 60 percent of forest cover in the buffer zone. While in the nucleus, which is the protected area already lost 20% of forest area due to "mining, livestock and logging are not leaving no gain to the Indians. If they are not benefiting much less the rest of Nicaraguans therefore we as young people want so Bosawás is protected from logging that is leading to the disappearance.

Youth Movement believes that the agenda of political parties should be to integrate a continuous process for the protection of the pool and not only Bosawás the environmental problematic if there are problems with the indigenous Miskito population and residents of the areas Mayagnas and if no action is taken as soon as possible the situation will worsen in the reserve, as global warming by the hand of man will make hers because many consequences are presented by climate change.

The Movement believes that this deisciones for preservation of the reserve should be taken encuenta the population of the different communities in the reserve for young and indigenous people as possible to take safeguard the territory, to overcome their differences and have a better protection of the reserve.

This situation is affecting communities Miskito and Mayangnas established in the reserve for which they need much support as there are many loggers who are established in the reserve and have everything trimmers makes them visible.

In these sites as the Bosawas reserve is apparent that it is possible to bet on a model of sustainable development into country nbuestro because if the booking is fully protected and invest in areas that are accecible could be promoted to ecotourism in the reserve because there is a nature so pure and rich in environmental matters which would contribute to sustainable development for Nicaragua.

this perspective as young people make the call to the youth and the entire population by nicaraguese to concientisarno Bosawás Biofera Reserve because it is the third largest reserves in the world and the lung of Central America so we should not let them exterminate the reserve and the natural resources of our country.

Nicaragua faces great challenges in the management of three biosphere reserves has, of which Bosawás is experiencing severe land degradation and to address the situation needs urgent action is taken joint as a country without seeing that party belongs, or is this government or another quality as well as all Nicaraguans who are we unite for the rio san juan must unite to save Bosawás because Bosawás Saving ... You Save Nicaragua.

"We have lost the notion that depend on a healthy environment to live and we went by greed, selfishness and metallization", clarifying that this is not a subject that has the focus from an investment perspective over because resources are "only evil being exploited."

L to uncontrolled migration is a problem that has also hurt Bosawás Reserve and many other irregularities reported that community, associated with the issue of legalization of their lands as the Indians are basically defenseless and not have the means to manifest, have no adequate policy space "

deforestation processes and that regional level and not just by poverty but are linked to large corporations and major political processes, the drug primarily because the lower part is related to real needs of hunger.

Environmental education is key.

The key to halt the deterioration in Bosawás Environmental education is, because as we have partnerships with more educational qualifications, break paradigms, because "people looking for other options for survival, is more capable of critical analysis and realize what is happening, "Environmental Education is the" real alternative to long-term and sustainable, "except that this output does demand more investment.

We must act!

Cuanto más atrasemos las acciones que incidan en revertir la degradación de nuestros valiosos recursos naturales, más nos va a costar en materia de inversión recuperarlos, por lo que hacemos el concientizarnos por Bosawás.

“Bosawás está en la capacidad de volver a sanarse ella misma, pero si seguimos el proceso de depredación desaparecerá”, por lo que señala oportuno actuar a lo inmediato, para que el proceso de recuperación no demande invertir grandes recursos.

Como Jovenes Integro a la protecion de la Reserva Biofera de Bosawás , we call Awareness reserve to adapt to climate change impacts and serguir breathing pure oxygen and pollution.

Printable Rabit Paw Prints

Chile Bolivia vs. Chile: The Demand for

Published in The Reason on 3 April 2011.
On October 20, 2004, on the centennial of the signing of the Treaty that left Bolivia legally cloistered brothers Victor Hugo Chávez and Wilfredo Serrano, submitted a proposed lawsuit against Chile to recover Bolivia sovereign access to sea, the then President Bolivian President Carlos Mesa, who, despite believing that the multilateral level is a good way to reach the sea, he ignored the said proposal or at least not included in its policy of gas by sea "it should be recalled, spiced wine chilenofóbico speech with salt. Fourteen months later, the day that Evo Morales took office, the Chavez brothers sent their proposal to the brand new president, who so far not used it and God save Bolivia if you choose.

Demand for Chavez, who in recent days there has been more topical, submit the case raises the controversy generated by the confinement the Bolivian Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague (TPA), based on allegations easily folding and raised in the most unusual understatement of professionalism and astuteness of Chilean diplomacy. Among which is the false argument that Bolivia never recognized the rule of Chile about the Atacama, located between latitudes 23 and 24 south latitude, which is a terrible mistake because such recognition was formalized by the Treaty notarized Minutes Peace and Friendship signed on 15 November 1904 and ratified by both countries. Which, in relevant part states:

"... having been controversial at times by the Bolivia government criteria with which Chile has consistently considered the situation in the territories lying between the parallels 23 and 24 south latitude, considered it appropriate to make clear that the government of Bolivia recognizes the absolute and perpetual Chile in recent territories from the sea to the current boundary with Argentina. "

But Chavez is not only unaware of the agreement, but also the note delivered to the Bolivian Foreign Ministry on February 12, 1879 from the Chargé d'Affaires of Chile, Pedro Nolasco Videla, after Bolivia did not answered in the time required by Chile, the proposal to take the dispute to arbitration in the United States. On that note, Chile unilaterally known limits of the Treaty of August 6, 1874, that 132 years later, Chavez intended to lead to TPA in The Hague for it to determine its validity. The note states:

"Broken treaty August 6, 1874, because Bolivia has not complied with the obligations set forth herein, are reborn to Chile, was legitimately assert rights by treaty 1866 on the territory to which the treaty is concerned. Accordingly, the Government of Chile shall exercise all acts it deems necessary to defend their rights, and His Excellency the Government of Bolivia should not see them but the logical result of the breakdown which has caused and its repeated refusal to seek a just and equally honorable to both countries. "

And that's not is all, Chavez does not know the documents invalidated the Treaty on the Transfer of Territories of May 18, 1895, by which Chile is committed to give Bolivia a sovereign access to the sea, ie, unaware of the Protocols of 9 December 1895 and April 30, 1896, which conditioned the entry into force of the CTBT to the approval of the reserves that the Bolivian Congress had opposed to its ratification, but, as expected, Chile never approved. However, the supposed validity of the instrument is another questionable arguments wielded by Chavez to sue Chile.

In conclusion, Chavez believed discover that Chile "forgot" to legalize its control over Bolivian territory now occupied and that "failed" override other agreements that force you to give Bolivia a sovereign outlet to the sea, and therefore submitted a proposal as never before in the history of Bolivian diplomacy had considered the possibility of bringing this matter to international courts, believing that enough knowledge of laws and very little history to design a foreign policy strategy, with the gall to not even review the basic literature of the subject, with a big and outrageous irresponsibility that comes to jeopardize the interests of Bolivia most expensive and worst of all, assuming that Chileans do not know some basic concepts of international law. In short, the demand for Chavez is a very accurate expression of what is meant by "native resiliency.

Note: the comments made are the opinion of the author and do not reflect the government's position Bolivia.