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.