Peru makes its case before the International Court; Chile: no surprises
Peru asked the International Court of Justice Monday to set a maritime border with Chile in a case that could greatly expand the amount of rich seas under Peruvian control off the two Pacific neighbours’ coasts.
The Peruvian delegation argued that a maritime boundary was never established and that two agreements which Chile claims set the border are non-binding and merely denoted some fishing zones. Chile insists the border was clearly set in treaties signed in 1952 and 1954.
Chile and Peru are among the world’s top producers of fishmeal, and the waters off their coasts are an important source of income for both countries. If Peru wins, it could gain control over more than 38.000 square kilometres of ocean that Chile has controlled for the last 60 years.
Peru was presenting its arguments Monday and Tuesday. Chile will respond Thursday and Friday.
The Peruvian government’s lawyer, Alain Pellet, told the court there is ‘‘a flagrant lack of any maritime delimitation’’ between the two countries and that Chile’s proposed border ‘‘radically cuts off Peru’s access to the high seas’’.
Pellet said Peru wants the 16-judge court to draw a line that will equally divide the sea off the two countries’ coasts based on established international law. ‘‘Peru asks neither more nor less than the laws of the sea grant to all coastal states,’’ he said.
Peru and Bolivia waged a joint war against Chile from 1879-1884 and lost badly, with Chile seizing a chunk of southern Peru as well as Bolivia’s entire coastline. Chile has long held that all border questions were resolved by several 20th century treaties.
Chilean President Sebastian Piñera last week said the long-awaited case in The Hague boils down to defending ‘‘a cause that belongs to us all, such as defence of our oceans ... and our sovereignty.’’
Chilean representative Maria Teresa Infante Caffi told reporters outside the courtroom that her country’s standpoint was not changed by Peru’s arguments.
‘‘The central point for Chile is the existence and validity of the limits that were established through bilateral agreements between the two countries,’’ she said.
But Peru’s foreign minister, Rafael Roncagliolo, disagreed.
‘‘No maritime boundary agreement exists between Peru and Chile and that was the heart of the presentations we made,’’ he told reporters.
Roncagliolo stressed that in the 1980s ‘‘Peru sought a negotiated solution and then formally sought a discussion with Chile again in 2004 but ‘‘in the face of the impossibility of reaching a negotiated outcome we have turned to the court as a civilized and peaceful option.’’
Chilean Foreign minister Alfredo Moreno praised the tone and manner in which the Peruvian delegates made their presentation despite the deep differences on the issue.
“I would like to underline the tone and manner in which this firs phase of the presentations has evolved despite the deep differences of both countries on the issue. This is the way which corresponds to a discussion between countries that share a future of peace, progress and integration”, said Moreno. He added there were no surprises in Peru’s arguments.
Over the weekend Chile and Peru's leaders urged their citizens to keep calm and avoid “exacerbated nationalism” ahead of Monday's international hearing.
Chile's President Sebastian Piñera spoke out against “exacerbated nationalism, which poisons the soul of the people,” in a column published Sunday in Chilean newspaper El Mercurio.
“This dispute granted Chile and Peru an opportunity to renew our relationship and embrace together with conviction and courage the future agenda, which should be of friendship, cooperation, progress and peace,” he said.
Suggested Stories
-
May 17th 2013
Uruguay’s José Mujica lauds booming Brazil ties
-
May 14th 2013
New WTO chief says it’s time for ‘modulating’ ambition and pushing protectionism back
-
May 13th 2013
German president in Brazil to promote trade and investments
-
May 18th 2013
Maduro admits to knowing “the IDs and all” of the 900.000 Chavistas who did not vote for him
20 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Nice turn of phrase. But a shame he didn't come out with it at Unasur.
Still though I hope Chile will prevail, at least Peru had the guts to take this to international court whereas Argentina haven't got the bottle to.
They are, however, friends of the RGs so Fuck Em.
When do we ever pretend to be a united happy family?
The continent is acting in greater political unison than ever before, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t major disputes. However, our relations with Peru are very good right now. We are demining the border and resolving this dispute at the ICJ. Chile has agreed to accept the results. There is no dispute over land, it is just the formula used to project the maritime border.
2 Hans
“But a shame he didn't come out with it at Unasur.”
Very true, but it would be unnecessary. We all know the Falklands are not going anywhere.
5 Frank
It has some merit, based on the formula currently used, but the border was agreed to earlier by Peru, so that should prevail. I hope we are not in for a surprise ruling like Colombia. A lot of my compatriots would react very badly.
6 redpoll
They would say what they have been saying for 130 years...its ours blab la bla. They signed a treaty in 1904 recognising the current border so they have no case at the ICJ.
Yes, these Unasur meetings are platforms for Argentina to hijack. Clearly there are many other serious issues that need to be discussed but it seems they are all happy to pretend that the UK is their one joint nemesis and portray an image of unity, which evidently far from the truth.
Brit,
“to pretend that the UK is their one joint nemesis”
That is totally incorrect. The UK is no one’s nemesis, either real or imagined. Quite the contrary, most countries in South America have very good relations with the UK. I think your frustration at Argentina distorts your impression of the whole region. Try looking at it from our perspective, rather than through the prism of the FI and you would realize that.
The FIs are Argentina’s single most important foreign policy issue. We would be very foolish to antagonise one of our most important trading partners over what is essentially a non issue. We would lose a lot and gain nothing.
It is a non issue internally because the Chilean public has many other priorities (think, how important is the well fare of the villagers in Chungungo to the UK populace?). It is a non issue externally because the FI status quo is not going to change so our bluff is unlikely to be called.
If I may pre-empt your “it’s about what is morally right” reply, no it is not.
Countries seldom let what is morally right override self interest unless there is a very strong moral obligation to act, which there isn’t in this case and if there were, our position might change.
I think the Argies have a better chance of getting their boat back.
I don't feel we have any obligation to return the Huascar. They lost it in a war that they were foolish enough to get involved in. Our fight was with Bolivia. If Peru had stayed out, the war would have lasted about a week and Peru would still have Iquique and Arica. Actions have consequences and if the Huascar reminds the Peruvians of that, then that is a good thing.
Intersting the different ideas of how to conduct a war. The letters between Captain Grau and Arturo Prats widow, although written in very flowery Spanish reflect a different age when such matters were not just a political spin
So much animosity that we have with Peru could have been avoided if they had thought things through better. For a start they should have stayed out of the war. Secondly after the fall of Arica, Chile sued for peace and Peru refused, forcing Chile to go on and take Lima. After losing Lima they still didn’t surrender and the Chilean army had to pursue the Peruvian army way up north to finally annihilate it. All the atrocities of the war were committed after the conclusion was inevitable and Chile was willing to accept a Peruvian surrender. And here we are today with the consequences.
I have only studied the naval warfare,not the land campaigns. War in any of its forms is atrocious and reduces normally sane men to beasts I agree. But sometimes there is no alternative as was such against the meglomaniac Hitler. Then you have to stand up and be counted or fall under the jackboot of a nasty dictatorship
An army is steamed up by its commanders words willing them on to victory and once the soldiers have seen so many of thier mates killed in assualt of a town they run wild on pent up adrenalin and the town is sacked. Even that strong disciplinarian Wellington,with his “bloody provost” couldnt stop the anarchy and atrocities after the storming of Badajoz. Unfortunately its the dark side of human nature which is always there just below the surface
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!