MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 17th 2024 - 19:12 UTC



Chile/Peru maritime dispute: International Court of Justice verdict January 27

Monday, December 16th 2013 - 10:37 UTC
Full article 17 comments

As the International Court of Justice is set to release its final verdict in January, Peru announces plans to build a new settlement less than a mile from the Chilean border. After years of tribulation, an end is finally in sight for a maritime dispute between Chile and Peru, with The Hague to announce its verdict on the case Jan. 27. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Conqueror

    If the ICJ is capable of providing a decision based on international law, the best Peru can hope for will be the line indicated by the RED dotted line. If Peru is claiming the “border” to be that shown by the GREEN dotted line, and get it, it will mean only one thing. Corruption!

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Musky

    Red line seems obvious but maybe there are ancient caveats, old agreements, old treaties, after all it doesn't take 5 years just to come up with a red line!

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Leiard

    Peru is happy with it's maritime border with Ecuador running parallel to the Equator line, but seems to want more from Chile.

    We all wait for Bolivia's reaction to the outcome in January - another trip to the ICJ ?

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    Yet another place The Dark Country will never visit and honour the result: the ICJ.

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Condorito

    If the border were to be defined today the red line would be the result.
    The current border was established prior to the modern formula and was agreed by Peru.

    Quite correct. The problem with these claims is that there is little or nothing to lose for the country that brings the claim. If they lose, they are exactly where they were before the case.

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror


    Prima facie, this only goes back to 1985. That's AFTER UNCLOS. Peru's little constitutional “problem” doesn't seem to be particularly relevant. Should have sorted itself out. Isn't it known as “customary” international law?

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Condorito

    @6 Conq
    It goes back before that. In 1952 Chile, Peru and Ecuador signed a joint declaration on maritime limits that specified the parallel limits.

    A further treaty was signed in 1954.

    We have international agreements on our side. They will have to prove that for some reason those agreements are no longer valid. There are arguments on both sides - we will just have to wait and see.

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Fido Dido

    Peru will celebrate the decision with a Pisco Sour, which is Peruvian after all.

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Condorito

    Pisco is Peruvian, but Pisco Sour was created by an American, hence the English word “Sour” in the name.

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    The red line seems fair,
    Both have agreed [before hand] to accept the verdict,
    But when the verdict arrives in January,
    [Will they] then accept the verdict,

    We will wait and see,
    But I agree with others,
    The red line seems fair….

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Philippe

    The only possible equitable division of that sea is through the blue line. Period.


    Dec 16th, 2013 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Briton

    see !!!!

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • redp0ll

    Interesting to see what Bolivia has to say about this judgement.

    Dec 16th, 2013 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    The map in The Santiago Times is much better than the above.

    Considering the common use of the equidistance principle in maritime law, Peru is most likely to win, although historic rights may play a role too.

    Dec 17th, 2013 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Frank

    Rather funny really... Peru and Chile arguing over something Bolivia says is theirs.... nothing like a bit of south american solidarity where territory is involved.

    Dunno why Peru wants it.. the Chileans have already caught all the fish... have you seen how many big fishing boats are laid up ashore... probably forever... in Mejillones? Seems all the fishing licences were pulled... after they had caught all the fish........

    Dec 17th, 2013 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ManRod

    many base there personal veredict on base of what is nowerdays considered “fairness” and geograpical vectors and proximity. Nevertheless the ICJ is a legal court and should only judge on base on what it is intended for: legal base.

    Chile and Peru have both had:
    1. Own decrets in each Nation in 1947, which defined the paralel as maritime borders
    2.treaties of 1952 and 54 signed by Peru, Chile and Ecuador, where they confirmed on mutual basis that the paralel settled by each Nation in 1947 is valid. And that each nation is entitled to capture ships violating this demarcation. Peru claims this is only a economical and fishing agreement and kind of an “economic border”.
    3. Treaties signed by Peru and Chile in 1968 and 1969, where the literally written “paralel maritime demarcation” is defined by geographical aspects and 2 lighthouses (1 on each side of the coastal border) are planned with the purpose to lighten these paralels, in order vessels can identify the paralel.
    These Lighhouses have been constructed in 1972. An Earthquake in 2001 destroyed the peruvian lighthouse, and since then Peru has not rebuild it again.
    “Funnily” 2001 is the year, where Peru filed the case in The Hague...

    Should ICJ modificate this paralel border, it's going to cause a lot of trouble, because I am not aware the ICJ has the powers to “undo” existing treaties regarding the handling of vessels crossing the paralel. We would have a national border with uses the equidistance argument and another treaty defining the “fishing border” along the paralel.

    Dec 17th, 2013 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dinoJon

    What Peru is proposing is totally unfair for Chile and especially for the Chilean cities of Arica and Iquique who will be almost blocked by the sea if the ICJ court for some unforeseen reason agrees with Peru. The 1952 and 54 agreements on the maritime frontier is very fair for Chile and Peru as per why it was agreed on the first place. In the ICJ court case the Chilean defense comprehensively demonstrated the agreements signed in the 1950's was an agreement for maritime borders. The Peruvian defense even conceded that the agreements were treaties. Sadly the Peruvian politicians have never had the courage to admit that there's no outstanding disagreements with Chile, most fair minded Peruvians will agree with that.

    Dec 21st, 2013 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!