DOCSLIB.ORG

(International Courts of Justice) Might Say About Argentina's Claims

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(International Courts of Justice) Might Say About Argentina's Claims Falkland Islands – What the ICJ (International Courts of Justice) Might Say About Argentina’s Claims Stephen Potts Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Argentina’s Claim and Initial Protest 2 The Treaty of Peace 2. Convention of Peace Treaty 2 2.1 Treaty Law, the Convention of Peace and the Falklands 2 2.2 Carlos Pereyra 3 2.3 Absalon Rojas 3 2.4 Ernesto Fitte 3 2.5 Juan José Cresto 4 2.6 Lord Palmerston 4 2.7 Convention or Treaty? 4 2.8 Acquiescence and Estoppel; the 1882 Latzina Map 5 2.9 Sovereignty Protests 6 Modes of Acquiring Title to Territory 3. Proximity 8 3.1 Prescription (effective control) 8 3.2 Argentina’s Claims of Sovereignty by Effective Occupation 1820 – 1833 10 3.3 Immemorial Possession and Historical Consolidation 14 3.4 Military Occupation leading to Conquest and Subjugation 16 3.5 Uti Possidetis Juris and Nootka Sound Convention 17 Self-Determination 4. Territorial Integrity and Argentinean Stance 20 4.1 A People 21 4.2 Indigenous People 22 4.3 Self-Determination 23 4.4 Erga Omnes 24 4.5 Implanted Population 25 4.6 Population Size 26 4.7 Freely Determined Relationship With the UK and the UN C24 Decolonization Committee 27 4.8 ICJ Individual Opinions 28 Historical Context 5. Snapshot of Falklands History 1826-1833 29 5.1 UN Charter & Resolution 2625 (XXV) 30 5.2 UN Resolution 2065 (XX) Question of the Falkland Islands 30 Argentina's Record & Arbitration 6. Argentina’s Record 31 6.1 UN Conventions & Argentina’s Declarations 31 6.2 Falkland Islands’ Territorial Waters 32 6.3 Extinctive Prescription – Argentina’s Failure to Submit its Claim 33 6.4 Argentina Has Acquiesced to British Title 34 6.5 The International Courts of Justice and International Arbitration 36 Conclusion 7. Conclusion 37 1 1. Introduction If Argentina and the UK both agreed to submit the Falklands issue to the International Courts of Justice for an opinion, what might the ICJ decide? The information provided below will examine Argentina’s claims, the Convention of Peace of 1850, acquiescence and estoppel before dealing with proximity, modes of acquiring territory, Argentina’s claims and territorial integrity arguments; moving on to social and cultural aspects of self- etermination, the UN Charter, applicable UNGA resolutions and concluding with Argentina’s history of dealing with treaty obligations. The attached information based on previous ICJ Judgments, Advisory Opinions, UN resolutions and associated matters might provide the answer as to how the ICJ would deal with such a case. 1.1 Argentina’s Claim and Initial Protests Argentina claims that it inherited the Falklands from Spain, a process known as uti possidetis juris and that in 1833 Britain usurped an Argentine settlement in the Falkland Islands, expelled the population (which is Argentina’s best-known falsehood), and then settled the Islands by implanting a population (Argentina’s second- best-known falsehood). 1 The Argentine government then protested about the British presence on the Falklands in its annual opening statement to Congress every year from 1833 right up to the ratification of the Convention of Peace in 1850. Furthermore, Argentina protested to Britain in 1833, 1834, 1841, and 1849 (when Argentine ambassador Manuel Moreno, unaware that Rosas was preparing to agree the Convention of Peace, queried the comment by Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Lord Palmerston that Argentina was giving up its claim). 2 2. Convention of Peace Treaty The Argentineans now deny that the Convention of Peace, which Britain and the Argentine Confederation ratified in 1850, affected the Falklands, but many authors say that it did. The main purpose of the treaty was to put an end to the Anglo-French naval blockade of the Rio de la Plata. Although no mention was made of the Falkland Islands in the treaty, the pre-amble of the treaty clearly states: “Convention for re-establishing the perfect Relations of friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation”. It was signed at Buenos Ayres on November 24, 1849, and ratifications were exchanged on May 15, 1850. 3 2.1 Treaty Law, the Convention of Peace and the Falklands It is a principle in law that any land/territory not mentioned in any peace treaty remains with the possessor. The law applicable and in force at the time states, ‘The treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it found it unless there is some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing is said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror and his title cannot afterwards be called into question.’ 4 International law on treaties is determined by the Vienna Law of Treaties, 1969. Article 31 (3) states: There shall be taken into account, together with the context, (c) Any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. 5 On the interpretation of subparagraph (c) Professor Lindefalk writes, ‘If it can be shown that the thing interpreted is a generic expression with a referent assumed by the parties to be alterable then the decisive factor for determining the meaning of the ‘’relevant rules of international law’’ shall be the law applicable at the time of the interpretation. In all other cases, the decisive factor shall be the law applicable at the time when the treaty was concluded.’ 6 The principle in law at the time of the signing of the treaty is also relevant. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in the Law and Procedure of the International Courts of Justice writes, ‘In a considerable number of cases, the rights of states (and more particularly of parties to an international dispute) depend or derive from rights, or a legal situation existing at some time in the past, or on a treaty concluded at some comparatively remote date… 1 Falklands War: the First 400 Years, Claims, Chronology & Counter-Claims, Lorton R. 2012, P80 & 115 quoting PRO Adm 1/2276. & AGN Sala Vll Legajo 60, p22. 2 False Falklands History at the United Nations, Pascoe & Pepper, 2012. 3 Convention of Peace Treaty, British and Foreign State Papers 1848-1849. 4 Elements of International Law: With a Sketch of the History of the Science, Wheaton, H. 1836, p288 and Elements of International Law, Halleck, H.W., 1866, p353. 5 Vienna Convention Law on Treaties, Article 31 (3) C, 1969. 6 On the Meaning of Treaties, Linderfalk, U. p182, 2007. 2 It can now be regarded as an established principle of international law that in such cases the situation in question must be appraised and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at the time, and not as they exist today.’ 7 The above principle was adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1975 when they adopted the following resolution: Any interpretation of a treaty must take into account all relevant rules of international law which apply between the parties at the time of the application. 8 The above was supported by Vice President Weeramantry in the ICJ Danube Dam Case of 1997 when he stated, ‘It may be observed that we are not here dealing with questions of the validity of the Treaty which fall to be determined by the principles applicable at the time of the Treaty…’ 9 The wording of the Treaty is important – ‘Convention for re-establishing the perfect Relations of friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation’, is written as the pre-amble of the treaty. In the ICJ case between Libya and Chad judgment the ICJ ruled regarding the meaning of the text and stated, ‘a treaty must be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in light of its obligations and purpose. Interpretation must be based above all on the text of the treaty.’ 10 The Treaty was initially called, ‘the Convention of Peace’ by both Britain and Argentina:- ‘November 24th, the Chamber of Representatives authorizes Governor Rosas to ratify the convention of peace between the Argentine Confederation and the United Kingdom of Britain,’ when Britain’s ratification is presented. The Treaty is recognized as ‘a convention of peace, signed by the Argentine and British plenipotentiaries.’ 11 This fact confirms that it was indeed a peace treaty and both sides interpreted it as settling ALL outstanding differences. Four important Spanish language sources confirm that this convention did in fact end the Falkland’s dispute and put an end to Argentina’s claims. 2.2 Carlos Pereyra Carlos Pereyra, Mexican diplomat and historian in his book, Rosas Y Thiers – La diplomacia europea en el Rio de la Plata (1838-1850) published in Madrid in 1919, says that he believes that Rosas (Argentine Head of State) was willing to buy Britain’s departure from the River Plate by ceding Argentina’s claims to the Falklands (page 202). He also states that Britain keeping the Falklands was an unwritten 8th article of the convention (page 206).12 2.3 Absalon Rojas On 19th July 1950, Deputy Absalon Rojas, in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies (Lower House of Congress) clearly believes that the convention should have made mention of the Falklands to exclude them, but did not. He then continues in this official record by stating that this might not have harmed Argentina’s claims judicially – but it has. 13 2.4 Ernesto Fitte Well known Argentine historian Ernesto Fitte also wrote about the convention of 1849/50 in his book ‘Cronicas del Atlántico Sur,’ published in 1974.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders of Israel
    PALESTINE, UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, AND THE BORDERS OF ISRAEL Abraham Bell* & Eugene Kontorovich** Israel’s borders and territorial scope are a source of seemingly endless debate. Remarkably, despite the intensity of the debates, little attention has been paid to the relevance of the doctrine of uti possidetis juris to resolving legal aspects of the border dispute. Uti possidetis juris is widely acknowledged as the doctrine of customary international law that is central to determining territorial sovereignty in the era of decolonization. The doctrine provides that emerging states presumptively inherit their pre-independence administrative boundaries. Applied to the case of Israel, uti possidetis juris would dictate that Israel inherit the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine as they existed in May, 1948. The doctrine would thus support Israeli claims to any or all of the currently hotly disputed areas of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem), the West Bank, and even potentially the Gaza Strip (though not the Golan Heights). TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 634 I. THE DOCTRINE OF UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS ........................................................... 640 A. Development of the Doctrine ..................................................................... 640 B. Applying the Doctrine ................................................................................ 644 II. UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS AND MANDATORY BORDERS ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Territorial Integrity and the "Right" to Self-Determination: an Examination of the Conceptual Tools, 33 Brook
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 33 | Issue 2 Article 15 2008 Territorial Integrity and the "Right" to Self- Determination: An Examination of the Conceptual Tools Joshua Castellino Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Recommended Citation Joshua Castellino, Territorial Integrity and the "Right" to Self-Determination: An Examination of the Conceptual Tools, 33 Brook. J. Int'l L. (2008). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol33/iss2/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE "RIGHT" TO SELF-DETERMINATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL TOOLS Joshua Castellino* INTRODUCTION T he determination and demarcation of fixed territories and the sub- sequent allegiance between those territories and the individuals or groups of individuals that inhabit them is arguably the prime factor that creates room for individuals and groups within international and human rights law.' In this sense, "international society"'2 consists of individuals and groups that ostensibly gain legitimacy and locus standi in interna- tional law by virtue of being part of a sovereign state. For example, al- though it has been argued that notions of democratic governance have become widespread (or even a norm of customary international law),4 this democracy-in order to gain international legitimacy-is assumed to be expressed within the narrow confines of an identifiable territorial unit.5 While this state-centered model has been eroded by international * Professor of Law and Head of Law Department, Middlesex University, London, England.
    [Show full text]
  • Uti Possidetis and the Decolonization of South Asia
    WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 130 Frozen frontier: uti possidetis and the decolonization of South Asia Vanshaj Ravi Jain [email protected] October 2019 Refugee Studies Centre Oxford Department of International Development University of Oxford RSC Working Paper Series The Refugee Studies Centre (RSC) Working Paper Series is intended to aid the rapid distribution of work in progress, research findings and special lectures by researchers and associates of the RSC. Papers aim to stimulate discussion among the worldwide community of scholars, policymakers and practitioners. They are distributed free of charge in PDF format via the RSC website. The opinions expressed in the papers are solely those of the author/s who retain the copyright. They should not be attributed to the project funders or the Refugee Studies Centre, the Oxford Department of International Development or the University of Oxford. Comments on individual Working Papers are welcomed, and should be directed to the author/s. Further details can be found on the RSC website (www.rsc.ox.ac.uk). RSC WORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 130 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Lines etched in sand: the creation and critique of uti possidetis 2 2.2. The legal status of uti possidetis 5 2.3. The functional critique of uti possidetis 8 3 Frozen frontier: the Radcliffe Line 9 3.1. The duplicity of the Radcliffe Line 9 3.2. Uti possidetis in Punjab 11 3.3. Colonial lines and social upheaval 13 4 Identity and intrastate violence: the construction of communal consciousness in Punjab 15 4.1. Identity in pre-partition Punjab 15 4.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to Solving Territorial Conflicts
    Approaches to Solving Territorial Conflicts Sources, Situations, Scenarios, and Suggestions May 2010 The Carter Center One Copenhill 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, GA 30307 www.cartercenter.org CONTENTS SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION vi PART I: INSTITUTIONS AND METHODS 1 THE UNITED NATIONS 1 General 1 International Court of Justice 1 PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION AND ARBITRATION GENERALLY 10 Permanent Court of Arbitration 10 Representative PCA Cases 11 Arbitration in General 15 OTHER DISPUTE-RESOLUTION METHODS 16 In General 16 Ecuador-Peru Conflict 18 Beagle Channel Dispute 21 Recent Examples 26 PART II: CASES OF SPECIAL INTEREST 27 BRCKO 27 Arbitration and Joint Administration 27 Other Yugoslavian Experiences 29 ABYEI 30 Abyei Boundaries Commission 30 Abyei Abitration 32 BOLIVIA-CHILE-PERU 36 NORTHEAST ASIA 39 China-Russia (Amur and Ussuri River Islands) 40 Japan-Russia (Southern Kurile Islands) 41 China-North Korea-Russia (Tumen River Area) 43 PART III: PERSPECTIVES 45 TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AS CAUSE OF MILITARY CONFLICT 45 RELATIVE PROMINENCE OF TERRITORIAL DISPUTES 48 ETHNO-TERRITORIAL CONFLICT: INITIATION AND RESPONSE 49 ETHNO-TERRITORIAL CONFLICT: CONTINUATION AND RECURRENCE 51 BORDERS AS INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 53 PART IV: MODELS AND METAPHORS 56 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS 56 Corridors in General 56 ICJ Case on Passage to Former Portuguese Enclaves Within India 58 Acess to the Sea 59 JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS 60 MANAGEMENT OF SHARED AND COMMON RESOURCES 63 Fresh Water Resources 63 Terrestrial Commons 67 PART V: CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 70 CONCLUSIONS 70 SUGGESTIONS 71 The Carter Center: Approaches to Resolving Territorial Conflicts ii SUMMARY Territorial disputes are notoriously difficult to resolve peacefully and enduringly. The outcome of adjudication on border issues is unpredictable, and political leaders are often unwilling to accept the risks of losing territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Territorial Integrity and the “Right” to Self-Determination: an Examination of the Conceptual Tools
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Middlesex University Research Repository TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND THE “RIGHT” TO SELF-DETERMINATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL TOOLS * Joshua Castellino INTRODUCTION he determination and demarcation of fixed territories and the sub- T sequent allegiance between those territories and the individuals or groups of individuals that inhabit them is arguably the prime factor that creates room for individuals and groups within international and human rights law. 1 In this sense, “international society”2 consists of individuals and groups that ostensibly gain legitimacy and locus standi in interna- tional law by virtue of being part of a sovereign state.3 For example, al- though it has been argued that notions of democratic governance have become widespread (or even a norm of customary international law), 4 this democracy—in order to gain international legitimacy—is assumed to be expressed within the narrow confines of an identifiable territorial unit.5 While this state-centered model has been eroded by international * Professor of Law and Head of Law Department, Middlesex University, London, England. Ph.D., International Law, University of Hull, England (1999); M.A., Interna- tional Law and Politics, University of Hull, England (1996); B. Comm., Bombay Univer- sity, India (1995). 1. See BRAD R. ROTH, GOVERNMENTAL ILLEGITIMACY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 2 (2001) (examining the process through which this “legitimacy” is validated in interna- tional law). See also JAMES L. BRIERLY, THE BASIS OF OBLIGATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND OTHER PAPERS 47 (Hersch Lauterpacht & C.H.M. Waldock eds., 1958) (ex- plaining the nexus between the individual and the state, defined on the basis of a fixed “territorial compartment”).
    [Show full text]
  • Falkland Islands – What the ICJ (International Courts of 2015 Justice) Might Say About Argentina’S Claims
    Falkland Islands – What the ICJ (International Courts of 2015 Justice) Might Say About Argentina’s Claims Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Argentina’s Claim and Initial Protests ......................................................................................... 1 2. Convention of Peace Treaty ........................................................................................... 2 2.1. Treaty Law, the Convention of Peace and the Falklands ........................................................... 2 2.2. Carlos Pereyra ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.3. Absalon Rojas ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.4. Ernesto Fitte ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.5. Juan José Cresto ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.6. Lord Palmerston .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.7. Convention or Treaty? ................................................................................................................. 5 2.8. Acquiescence and Estoppel .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uti Possidetis Juris: from Rome to Kosovo
    Uti PossidetisJu ris: From Rome to Kosovo ENVER HASANI This paper examines the principle of utipossidetisjuris-aconcept of inter- national law that defines borders of newly sovereign states on the basis of their previous administrative frontiers. It proceeds by tracing the historical roots of the concept and by analyzing its modern-day application, albeit not recognized in law or international politics, in the case of Kosovo. Originating from Roman law, uti possidetis juris involved ownership over things and was temporary in nature. It was later, during the medieval period, that it became a norm of international relations-first in Latin America and then in Africa and Asia. Outside the colonial context, the uti possidetis juris principle has been applied to the disintegration of the former Communist federations of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union. The Yugoslav case, one that has brought tragedy to the entire Balkan region, stands at the center of present analysis. This does not mean that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and its aftermath pro- duced no tragedies-current developments in Chechnya prove otherwise. However, Kosovo has seen an unprecedented involvement by the international community, which has insisted on the continued-and, arguably, disastrous- application of the utipossidetisjurisprinciple. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The principle of uti possidetis has historically developed in two forms-uti possidetisjurisand utipossidetisdefacto.' The former norm is the one that has been used in modern times, while the latter belongs to the past, its origin traceable as far back as the medieval times. Back then, the partition of territories proceeded in ways analogous to the division of private property.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic and Cooperative Post-Colonial Borders: How Two Interpretations of Borders by the I.C.J
    Penn State International Law Review Volume 25 Article 5 Number 1 Penn State International Law Review 7-1-2006 Economic and Cooperative Post-Colonial Borders: How Two Interpretations of Borders by the I.C.J. May Undermine the Relationship between Uti Possidetis Juris and Democracy Andrew A. Rosen Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Recommended Citation Rosen, Andrew A. (2006) "Economic and Cooperative Post-Colonial Borders: How Two Interpretations of Borders by the I.C.J. May Undermine the Relationship between Uti Possidetis Juris and Democracy," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 25: No. 1, Article 5. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol25/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Economic and Cooperative Post-Colonial Borders: How Two Interpretations of Borders by the I.C.J. May Undermine the Relationship Between Uti Possidetis Juris and Democracy Andrew A. Rosen* This article re-visits the internationallegal concept of uti possidetis juris through the discussion and analysis of three recent decisions by the International Court of Justice (I.C.J) (Qatar v. Bahrain, Botswana v. Namibia, and Cameroon v. Nigeria). In particular,I question whether the applicationof uti possidetisjuris is conducive to democracy. Uti possidetis juris is the international legal basis for all post- colonial borders and both defines and protects the post-colonial polity through a combination of two principles: self-determination and the non-interference in the affairs of other countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Péter Kovács' Partly Dissenting Opinion Public
    ICC-01/18-143-Anx1 05-02-2021 1/163 EC PT Judge Péter Kovács’ Partly Dissenting Opinion Public Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology and reasoning ............................................................................................. 3 A) What is the legal value of the United Nations resolutions? ................................... 4 B) Interlocking presumptions? ..................................................................................... 7 C) Competence for an in merito assessment of the notion of ‘the territory of the State’ in the situation sub judice ....................................................................................... 11 D) The Majority Decision and the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention 19 E) Did the Majority provide a practical answer to the Prosecutor? ....................... 32 The legitimacy and importance of relying on international law when assessing the impact of international legal documents on the situation sub judice................................. 35 The issue of the Montevideo criteria ............................................................................. 42 A) The Montevideo Convention and customary law ................................................. 42 B) The ‘permanent population’ criterion................................................................... 45 C) The ‘defined territory’ criterion ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uti Possidetis Juris and the OAU/AU Principle on Respect of Borders Are Neither Identical Nor Equivalent
    SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF Uti possidetis juris and the OAU/AU principle on respect of borders are neither identical nor equivalent ― The Cairo Resolution and founding instruments of the OAU and AU do not refer to uti possidetis juris ― The two principles must be distinguished in light of their different origins, purposes, legal scope and nature ― The Court should have cleared up this confusion ― The OAU/AU principle is not concerned with the relationship between title and effectivités ― Nor does it confer preference on one over the other ― The reference to territorial integrity in the OAU/AU founding instruments cannot be interpreted as implicitly containing the principle of uti possidetis juris ― It is the inviolability of boundaries which is implicit in territorial integrity ― Inviolability does not mean invariability or intangibility ― The 1987 delimitation agreement between the Parties distinguishes this case from previous frontier delimitation cases ― Uti possidetis juris had no role to play in this case ― This should have been recognized in the Judgment. I. INTRODUCTION 1. While I am in agreement with the decision of the Court, I feel obliged to deal in this opinion with certain issues, which the Court did not adequately address in the reasoning of the Judgment, particularly as regards the applicable principles invoked by the Parties in their pleadings before the Court (see paragraph 63 of the Judgment). 2. In its analysis of the rules and principles invoked by the Parties in their Special Agreement, the Court refers to the following three principles in paragraph 63 of the Judgment: (a) the principle of intangibility of boundaries inherited from colonization; (b) the principle of uti possidetis juris; and (c) the principle of respect of borders existing on achievement of independence adopted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in its Resolution AHG/Res.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Atacama Desert Christopher R
    University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 2-1-2017 A Case Ill Suited for Judgment: Constructing ‘A Sovereign Access to the Sea’ in the Atacama Desert Christopher R. Rossi Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Law of the Sea Commons Recommended Citation Christopher R. Rossi, A Case Ill Suited for Judgment: Constructing ‘A Sovereign Access to the Sea’ in the Atacama Desert, 48 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 28 (2017) Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr/vol48/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Inter- American Law Review by an authorized editor of Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Case Ill Suited for Judgment: Constructing ‘A Sovereign Access to the Sea’ in the Atacama Desert Christopher R. Rossi* In 2015, the International Court of Justice ruled that Bo- livia’s claim against Chile could proceed to the merit stage, setting up this Article’s discussion of perhaps the most in- tractable border dispute in South American history – Bo- livia’s attempt to reclaim from Chile a ‘sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean’. This Article investigates the interna- tional law and deeply commingled regional history pertain- ing to the Atacama Desert region, the hyperarid yet re- source-rich region through which Bolivia seeks to secure its long-lost access to the sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Common Ground
    Finding Common Ground Indigenous Peoples and their Association with the Mining Sector A Report based on the work of the Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development Project at the International Institute for Environment and Development Breaking New Ground is the final report of the Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development Project (MMSD), an independent two-year process of consultation and research that aimed to understand how to maximise the contribution of the mining and minerals sector to sustainable development at the global, regional, national, and local levels. Breaking New Ground contains proposals for global change in the mining and minerals sector. Order No. 9084IIED ISBN 1 85383 907 8 (Earthscan) US$35.00 Breaking New Ground and the other outputs of the MMSD project can be viewed at www.iied.org/mmsd. All IIED publications can be purchased from our online bookshop, www.Earthprint.com Tel: +44 1438 748 111 Fax: +44 1438 748 844 Email: [email protected] Finding Common Ground Indigenous Peoples and Their Association with the Mining Sector Finding Common Ground Indigenous Peoples and their Association with the Mining Sector A Report based on the work of the Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development Project at the International Institute for Environment and Development London, 2003 IIED 3 Endsleigh Street London WC1H 0DD Tel: +44 (0)20 7388 2117 Fax: +44 (0)20 7388 2826 Email: [email protected] www.iied.org ©International Institute for Environment and Development and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2003 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IIED, WBCSD, or the MMSD Project.
    [Show full text]