The recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision on the Chilean-Peruvian maritime boundary dispute closed one chapter of a trilateral territorial dispute that has festered among Chile, Peru and Bolivia for more than a century. But while Chile and Peru mend fences, similar progress between Chile and Bolivia has not materialized. Less than a decade ago, geopolitical tensions surrounding the dispute played a part in blocking Bolivia from participating in a clear market solution to Chile’s natural gas crisis. Today, that dynamic has deteriorated for Bolivia: The region’s shifting energy market realities have removed what leverage Bolivia had in its negotiations with Chile, making a bilateral territorial settlement less likely.
Last week, the International Court of Justice in The Hague handed down its decision delineating the maritime boundary between Chile and Peru. The boundary dispute is a legacy of the War of the Pacific, fought among Chile, Peru and Bolivia from 1879 to 1893 over control of the lucrative mineral deposits in the Atacama Desert. The war ended in the Treaty of Ancon, which gave Chile control of Peru’s Arica province as well as Bolivia’s Litoral department, effectively removing Bolivia’s only coastline. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Reality Check: The Past’s First Lesson: Beware of False Historical Analogies
- Strategic Horizons: For Hint of Iraq’s Future, Take Another Look at Vietnam War
- World Citizen: BRICS Still Have a Long Way to Go From Grouping to Alliance
- Scandals Upend Bachelet’s Reform Agenda—and Chile’s Political Class
- Reality Check: The Real Iraq War Debate’s Lessons for U.S. Foreign Policy