They face higher consumer prices especially
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 4:50 am
States thus have obligations at three levels: (a) internally, through the formulation of national development policies and programmes affecting persons within their jurisdictions; (b) internationally, through the adoption and implementation of policies extending beyond their jurisdictions; and (c) collectively, through global and regional partnerships.
According to the Declaration, “all human beings have a responsibility for development, individually and collectively, taking into account the need for full respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as their duties to the community, which alone can ensure the free and complete fulfillment of the human being …” (art. 2 (2)). They should be active participants in development (art. 2 (1)) and have a duty, individually and collectively, to promote and protect an appropriate political, social and economic order for development (art. 2 (2)).” [OHCHR, Right to Development, Fact Sheet No. 37, at p. 4] (Italics and emphasis added.)
I personally doubt that Bolivia’s denial of any access to the Pacific Ocean can just be left up today to, in the words of the Court, “a spirit of good neighborliness” that will somehow move Chile, Bolivia, or the rest of the OAS to facilitate and expedite negotiations, when 100 years thus far have produced no results. As the World Bank observed over a decade ago, landlocked countries are often mired in poverty, if not deep and extreme poverty. for crucial essentials for local communities such as food and agricultural foodstuffs; the inevitable imposition of more tariffs and customs duties by coastal States to viber database which they are beholden; and this can retard economic growth and capabilities-driven development by generations. While of course in Bolivia’s case its poverty is attributable to many factors (governance, corruption, deep social inequality, among others), it is hard to say that its landlocked situation is not also among those factors contributing to its continuing poverty.
International human rights law – especially our commitments to sustainable development – should mean more in Bolivia’s case here than just “a spirit of good neighborliness” to simply leave it at the mercies of its prosperous coastal neighbors. If the Court could indicate provisional measures two days later in its 3 October 2018 Provisional Measures Order in Iran v. United States carving out “humanitarian and civil aviation” exceptions to the United States’ May 8, 2018 sanctions (when no such differentiated language appears in Iran’s original application to the Court and request for provisional measures), the Court could have also done better than resigning itself to “a spirit of good neighborliness” in Bolivia v. Chile, to at least recognize the urgency of Bolivia’s developmental needs for some maritime access to the Pacific Ocean. States’ legally binding commitments under international human rights law and the international law of sustainable development should also reorient our orthodox understandings today on States’ freedoms to use their territory and dispose of their natural resources. These freedoms are no longer completely unlimited, nor are they unilaterally determined anymore in this era of cooperation for the sustainable development of all States.
According to the Declaration, “all human beings have a responsibility for development, individually and collectively, taking into account the need for full respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as their duties to the community, which alone can ensure the free and complete fulfillment of the human being …” (art. 2 (2)). They should be active participants in development (art. 2 (1)) and have a duty, individually and collectively, to promote and protect an appropriate political, social and economic order for development (art. 2 (2)).” [OHCHR, Right to Development, Fact Sheet No. 37, at p. 4] (Italics and emphasis added.)
I personally doubt that Bolivia’s denial of any access to the Pacific Ocean can just be left up today to, in the words of the Court, “a spirit of good neighborliness” that will somehow move Chile, Bolivia, or the rest of the OAS to facilitate and expedite negotiations, when 100 years thus far have produced no results. As the World Bank observed over a decade ago, landlocked countries are often mired in poverty, if not deep and extreme poverty. for crucial essentials for local communities such as food and agricultural foodstuffs; the inevitable imposition of more tariffs and customs duties by coastal States to viber database which they are beholden; and this can retard economic growth and capabilities-driven development by generations. While of course in Bolivia’s case its poverty is attributable to many factors (governance, corruption, deep social inequality, among others), it is hard to say that its landlocked situation is not also among those factors contributing to its continuing poverty.
International human rights law – especially our commitments to sustainable development – should mean more in Bolivia’s case here than just “a spirit of good neighborliness” to simply leave it at the mercies of its prosperous coastal neighbors. If the Court could indicate provisional measures two days later in its 3 October 2018 Provisional Measures Order in Iran v. United States carving out “humanitarian and civil aviation” exceptions to the United States’ May 8, 2018 sanctions (when no such differentiated language appears in Iran’s original application to the Court and request for provisional measures), the Court could have also done better than resigning itself to “a spirit of good neighborliness” in Bolivia v. Chile, to at least recognize the urgency of Bolivia’s developmental needs for some maritime access to the Pacific Ocean. States’ legally binding commitments under international human rights law and the international law of sustainable development should also reorient our orthodox understandings today on States’ freedoms to use their territory and dispose of their natural resources. These freedoms are no longer completely unlimited, nor are they unilaterally determined anymore in this era of cooperation for the sustainable development of all States.