Dispute Over The Status And Use Of The Waters Of The Silala (Chile V Bolivia): A Significant Non-Decision

On 6 June 2016, the Republic of Chile submitted an application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to institute proceedings against the Plurinational State of Bolivia seeking declarations concerning the nature of the Silala river system as an international watercourse and the associated rights and obligations of the two parties under international law. On 1 December 2022, the ICJ determined that, regarding four claims made by Chile and two counterclaims made by Bolivia, there was no dispute between the two parties and, as a result, they would not be called upon to make a decision. Can the ICJ declare that a claim is void of object, thus requiring no decision? The author discusses four possible implications of this case regarding this question. First, the ICJ set a possibly influential precedent that the court has the power to declare claims to have no object without a legally binding agreement having been established during the course of proceedings. Second, the ICJ also set precedent which may allow it to decline requests for declaratory judgments and instead proceed to a final judgment where it determines that claims are void of object. Third, this ruling may establish a relatively low bar for determining that claims are void of object. Fourth, parties in contentious cases may be more likely to expect that the ICJ will not provide declaratory judgments, resulting in a party putting forth arguments which they know are untenable to avoid unfavourable outcomes in declaratory judgments.