At the jingle of ICJ President Justice Maxwell’s bell, began arguments in the Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) hearing. The legal question entertained is whether  Chile is obligated to negotiate with Bolivia on sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Chile reminded the court that it has graciously granted Bolivia unrestricted commercial access to the ocean as agreed upon in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1904). Bolivia, which is landlocked, pressed to further continue century-long talks about accessing the Pacific Ocean. The negotiation in question would address Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The Advocate for Chile explained that it “has asserted sovereignty over that piece of land since 1866 and understands [that] it used to be Bolivian land, [however,] we feel we have done an adequate in [ granting] access, giving them as unrestricted access as possible, so we feel we have done as much as we can and more than was asked of us and don’t understand the necessity of providing them sovereign access and providing them the breadth of sovereignty when we have given the acts of concessions to access that land.” The unanimous majority opinion of the court ruled in favor of Chile. The Justices found that the legal obligations in question must arise from legal commitments; previous interactions do not suffice this qualification. Furthermore, this lack of obligation nullifies the rest of Bolivia’s pleas. While the Court is not mandating negotiations, it does encourage future collaboration between the two parties. 

For more specifics on the justification of the decision, please see the final opinion.