Relationship dossier
Bolivia
Chile
Relationship assessment
Longstanding dispute over Bolivia’s maritime access coexists with treaty-based transit and legal engagement.
Bolivia toward Chile
-40Bolivia has maintained its claim to sovereign access to the Pacific and brought a case against Chile before the International Court of Justice in 2013, seeking an obligation to negotiate. The Court ruled in 2018 that Chile was not legally obliged to negotiate such access. Bolivia and Chile also pursued bilateral dialogue, including a 2006 agenda covering maritime and other issues.
Chile toward Bolivia
-35Chile has maintained the 1904 treaty framework providing Bolivia with transit and port access, while rejecting the claim that it has a legal obligation to negotiate sovereign maritime access. Chile brought a case concerning the Silala waters before the International Court of Justice; the Court ruled in 2022 on the river’s status and the parties’ respective rights and obligations.
Overall relationship
-40The relationship is shaped by the unresolved maritime dispute and the absence of full diplomatic relations since 1978. Treaty-based transit arrangements and recourse to bilateral dialogue and international adjudication provide channels for practical engagement, but they have not resolved the central political disagreement.
How to read these scores
Scores are rough judgments, not objective measurements or current verification. Directional scores describe government policy and conduct, not public opinion. The overall score is an independent estimate, never an average.
- −100
- Extreme sustained hostility
- −50
- Substantially adversarial
- 0
- Mixed or neutral, supported by knowledge
- +50
- Substantially cooperative
- +100
- Exceptionally close sustained partnership
“Not assessed” means there is no recorded score. Pair existence makes no claim about diplomatic recognition or established relations.
Relationship context
Overview
Bolivia and Chile have a persistently strained relationship centered on Bolivia’s claim to sovereign access to the Pacific, and they have lacked full diplomatic relations since 1978. Their disputes have been pursued through bilateral talks and the International Court of Justice, while the 1904 treaty provides a framework for Bolivian transit and port access. These practical arrangements coexist with unresolved political and legal disagreements.
Areas of tension
- Bolivia’s claim to sovereign access to the Pacific and Chile’s position on whether it must negotiate that access.
- Competing legal and political claims concerning the Silala waters.
- The absence of full diplomatic relations since 1978.
Key developments
The 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship established the postwar framework, including Bolivian transit and port access through Chile.
Bolivia and Chile broke diplomatic relations after negotiations over Bolivia’s maritime claim failed.
Bolivia filed a case at the International Court of Justice seeking a ruling that Chile was obliged to negotiate sovereign access to the Pacific.
The International Court of Justice ruled that Chile was not legally obliged to negotiate Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific.
The International Court of Justice issued its judgment on the Silala waters dispute, addressing the river’s status and the parties’ rights and obligations.
Major uncertainties
- The scope and practical implementation of bilateral transit and port arrangements are unclear.
- The extent of current technical and consular cooperation is uncertain.