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
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: Netanyahu Stunt Distracts From Congress’ Proper Foreign Policy Role
- If You Dig It, Will They Come? Nicaragua’s Controversial Canal
- The Realist Prism: India Visit Successful, but Will Obama Follow Through?
- Global Insights: Bond With Modi Helps Obama’s India Visit Exceed Expectations
- Strategic Horizons: U.S. Must Be Prepared for Life After Putin, Even if Russia Isn’t