MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UN highest court settles maritime dispute: pride for Peru, rich fisheries remain for Chile
The United Nations’ highest court set a maritime boundary between Chile and Peru on Monday that grants Peruvians a bigger piece of the Pacific Ocean while keeping rich coastal fishing grounds in the hands of Chilean industry. Despite high emotions over the dispute, the ruling is expected to have little effect on cordial ties between the two neighbors whose economic interdependence has grown greatly in recent years. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe maturity shown by both these countries during this dispute is praiseworthy.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is a pity that not all countries can do the same.
It is also great to see that the economic and social integration between Peru and Chile grows almost faster than their economic growth. No economic sabotage.
I'm not happy with the verdict, how the hell did they come up with the 80 miles? A sad day for us but we are signed up to accept the authority of the ICJ so tough luck I guess. Maybe we should look at withdrawing from the treaty that recognises the ICJ since Bolivia is coming for us next.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0TCp don't worry, just do what the Argies do: scream, shout, complain and moan about an alleged injustice. But when it is suggested politely that they should seek a binding resolution at the ICJ, they go surprisingly quiet.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 03 zathras...
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The thing is, we don't want to sue anybody they all want to sue us. What makes it difficult is that since we recognize the ICJ's authority we are bound by their judgements, and as a serious country that respects the rule of law we have no choice but to comply with the ruling. No one is saying we should ignore the ruling but some are saying we should withdraw. I think it's a good idea as this won't be the last time we get sued.
@4 Why not sue Argentina and take Mendoza back? Just for giggles. :)
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am confused...Why did Chile and Peru take this dispute to the ICJ?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Surely it is for the decolonization comittee to decide sovereignty matters?
Or actually not decide them, but let one side prattle on ad infinitum and get free trips to new York annually on the back of their tax payers.
@ Elaine and Monkeymagic: Argentina is not a signatory of the “Pact of Bogota”, but Chile is. Pact of Bogota is a regional agreement, which defines that in case of bilateral disputes, the ICJ will mandatory decide over controversies without posibility to “escape” from the result, it is a kind of “trap”. Peru sued Chile @ ICJ, claiming that they didn't have any maritime border treaty with Chile, and that the treaties presented by Chile were merily economic fishery treaties. The ICJ ruled this was not the case, though. They confirmed th Chilean point that these treaties DID define the paralel as limit. Nevertheless I still don't know, why the court did not accept the 200 miles mentioned on same treaties, and did shorten them up to 80 miles. It is not plausible to me and I fully understand TCP perspective and question.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#3 Zathras, I think you fully missed the point. We have not taken this case to the court, but we have been sued. And no, we are not ignoring the judgment and will respect this verdict (When Peru does their necessary steps according to the court, like changing their internal reglementation regarding the HITO 1 which they falsely modifed, and when they join the CONVEMAR)
@7 I was being flippant. But, thank you, that was very interesting.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@2 Here's “an” answer.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The court, whose rulings cannot be appealed, compromised by saying a border already existed parallel to the equator extending 80 nautical miles from the coast. From there, it drew a line southwest to where the countries’ 200-mile territorial waters end.”
Here's another one.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf
It's the judgement. It also explains the 80 miles!
@7... ” And no, we are not ignoring the judgment and will respect this verdict (When Peru does their necessary steps according to the court, like changing their internal reglementation regarding the HITO 1 which they falsely modifed, and when they join the CONVEMAR)”
Jan 28th, 2014 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and what are the chances that Peru will NOT comply with this part of the ruling? I am presuming that this is a prerequisite for the rest of the ruling, yes?
@ The Chilean perspective and ManRod
Jan 28th, 2014 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am much more sanguine about the matter. We lost a tiny part of our massive EEZ (possibly the largest in the world per capita) and we can now push ahead unhindered in our relation with one of our most important partners. As you know we already own large chunks of their economy and as they grow they provide excellent growth opportunities for our businesses.
The arrival at the 80 miles seems unfounded, but I understand that it came down to the courts responsibility to find a proportionate solution, which I think they did. A look at the map shows we still have all the productive fishing water and Tacna still looks out to Chilean ocean.
I agree with your concern that this kind of procedure favors the claimant who wishes to change the status quo and as we claim territory from no one we are therefore on the defensive.
However, if we had tied this up decades ago with an unambiguous delimitation of sovereign territory there wouldn't have been any room for Peru's opportunism.
IMO we have done right.
The direct and not so indirect jabs at Argentina are expected, but what I don't understand is why everyone here wants Argentina to abide by international treaties designed to UNDERMINE IT? Those treaties and organizations were set up, lets all admit it, for the benefit of the STATUS QUO for the powers-that-be.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think Argentina has the right to withdraw from European-North American founded bodies, which restrain its development. Independent of what internal politics in Argentina do to its progress, the fact remains there is not ONE international body that one can state clearly is out there to benefit developing countries.
@3 Tobarine
Jan 28th, 2014 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I think Argentina has the right to withdraw from European-North American founded bodies, which restrain its development. ”
So why are they begging for a second chance from the Paris Club and the IMF?
As a further gesture of friendship between Chile and Peru the old battleship Huascar should be declared national patrimony of both nations and both flags flown at her base in Chile.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 150 year old lady, lovingly restored by the Chilean Navy should stay where she is but perhaps with a token crew of both Chilean and Peruvian sailors.
@13 Correction: “@12 Tobarine”
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know nothing about this dispute but I would like to congratulate both Presidentes, and both countries, for having accepted the ICJ resolution. It's a proof of maturity, responsibility and credibility. It also gives confidence to potential international investors.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina and Chile did the very same in the Beagle Canal dispute, saddly the FI issue went to the oposite direction...in a “dead end” way.
@pgerman
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Beagle dispute was very different.
Argentina claimed the 3 islands in question, we both submitted to a binding international arbitration in 1971. The arbitration ruled in favor of Chile. Argentina then screamed like a baby and refused to accept the arbitration.
Argentina then proceeded to threaten Chile militarily, moving large troop numbers to the area and taking us to the brink of war.
As a result a second negotiation followed, that again went in Chile's favor.
Argentina publicly agreed to the result of the new mediation in 1979, but you would have to be very naive if you believe that had the Falklands war gone differently that the Argies would have been back for the Beagle territory.
In other words, pgerman, Argentina displayed arrogance, immaturity and disregard for international arbitration, the complete opposite of the Chile/Peru maritime dispute.
Argentina's behavior over the Beagle channel was probably the major factor in Chile backing the UK in 1982.
#10 GFace: ...and what are the chances that Peru will NOT comply with this part of the ruling? I am presuming that this is a prerequisite for the rest of the ruling, yes?
Jan 28th, 2014 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good point, its definitely a prerquisite that Peru adheres to the CONVEMAR, because the verdict demands this. Peru is one of the few nations on this planet not having accepted CONVEMAR, because they claim full souvereignity over 200 miles. But the court have not granted them souvereignity, but “just” economic rights over this triangle.
Honestly said, I do not know how they will proceed there, but Chile should remain firm on this issue. You can't just pick the best fruits and get rid of international obligations.
14 redpoll: “As a further gesture of friendship between Chile and Peru the old battleship Huascar should be declared national patrimony of both nations and both flags flown at her base in Chile.
The 150 year old lady, lovingly restored by the Chilean Navy should stay where she is but perhaps with a token crew of both Chilean and Peruvian sailors.”
Come on, our goodwill has limits. Your proposal would be like asking Great Britain to pay compensations to Germany after World war II. xD
80 nm instead of 200 nm because there was no internationally recognised 200 nm EEZ in the 1950s when agreements. 200 nm EEZ wasn't recognised internationally until 1982
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terrestrial border is marked with markers (hitos in Spanish) but no marker was placed at Concordia point where the land border meets the ocean on the grounds it might be destroyed by the waters, so the first marker (Hito 1) was placed inland to the north east of Concordia point)
Peru had claimed that maritime border should start at the latitude of Concordia point regardless of whether it was parallel to the equator or angled to it. The Court decided that the maritime border, as well as being parallel to the equator, started at the latitude of Hito 1. This means that about 300 metres of The Peruvian coast does not have jurisdictional waters.
http://www.cooperativa.cl/prontus_nots/site/artic/20090320/imag/FOTO_0220090320104043.jpg
Man rod I disagree
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Huascar sure is a prize of war, but it was along time ago.
Things were done differently in those days. Perhaps you should read the correspondence between captain Grau and Arturo Pratts widow. Very flowery Spanish perhaps, but the sense comes through
Huascar is symbol,not an active warship. Great that the Chileans have looked after her
The whole Concordia starting Point is a myth anyway. It's totally made up, believe me. I know both documents from start to end from 1929 and the Addendum actas of 1930. The first document from 1929 defines the Frame of the new frontier between Chile and Peru, explaining that there will be HITOS to define the border, starting with Punto Concordia aka “Orilla del mar”. This first document also definitely says that These Hitos will be settled in a second following document. That second document was then edited by both nations defining geographical coordenates for all the Hitos, starting with Hito 1 (aka “Orilla del mar” again!)
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conclusion: Punto Concordia IS Hito nr 1 (both defined as ”orilla del mar on both documents). The peruvian Interpretation of ”Punto COncordia more south to the border just exist in their Imagination. The Court immediately recognized this, they even dedicated about 5 mins to this aspect out of the almost 2 hours verdict.
(17) Condorito
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Allow me to “supplement” your almost correct comment on the Beagle ”Issue”…:
”The Beagle dispute was very different…..
Argentina claimed the 3 islands in question, we both submitted to a binding international arbitration in 1971. The arbitration ruled [IN 1977] in favor of Chile .
[THE CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME OF] Argentina screamed like a baby and refused to accept the arbitration.
[THE CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME OF] Argentina proceeded to threaten [THE CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME OF] Chile militarily, moving large troop numbers to the area and taking us to the brink of war.
As a result a second negotiation followed, that again went in Chile's favor.
[THE CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME OF] Argentina publicly agreed to the result of the new mediation in 1979, but you would have to be very naive if you believe that had the Falklands war gone differently, the Argie’s [CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME] wouldn’t have been back for the Beagle territory.
That was better................., wasn't it?
Dear Condorito, my friend.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unlike this judgment of the ICJ the judgemtn of the British Queen gave all the area under dispute to Chile almost leaving Argentine settlements, such as Ushuaia, without the right to use the Canal...
During the presidency of Dr. Frondizi Argentina officially suggested Chile the arbitration not only on the three islands of the dispute, but on the other to the south of them , to Cape Horn.
It was the first time Argentina posed a formal complaint about the southernmost islands, argue that was rejected by Chile. As a result of subsequent negotiations Argentina removed the note he had made such a proposal.
Soon after that, the two sides signed four protocols one of which was submitted to the decision of the ICJ the question of sovereignty over the islands Picton, New and adjacent islets only, since the island Lennox was recognized as Chilean sovereignty. This agreement was not ratified by the parliaments.
Finally, during 1967, Chile requested the intervention of the British government under the Treaty of 1902. The arbitration agreement was signed and according to this agreement, Queen Elizabeth II appointed by agreement of the parties an arbitration court of five judges of the ICJ.
The subject of the dispute was to set the limit on the Beagle Channel, and decide which country belonged Picton, Nueva and Lennox Islands and adjacent islets and islands.
The final decision ended artitrating on other issues such as those relating to maritime jurisdiction, navigation rights on other channels (some Fuegians on the eastern mouth of the Strait of Magellan that were supposed to be out of the discussion).
'Argentina displayed arrogance, immaturity and disregard for international arbitration“..don't you find this speech a little bit boring? It's in line with Conqueror and his ”friends” speeches.
I believe the UK behavior over the Beagle channel was probably the major factor in Chile backing the UK in 1982. Both were connected.
Criminal and illegal and yet still the recognised government.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Didn't change the story at all.
Criminal and illegal and yet a recognised goverment by the UK. A friend and ally government of Ms Margaret Thatcher and Mr Ronald Reagan by the way.....
Jan 28th, 2014 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ pgerman
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0None of what you have stated changes the fact that Argentina agreed to a binding international arbitration. Binding. Binding means you accept the result. Argentina did not like the result so they chose to ignore it. I do think that displays arrogance and immaturity - sorry if that is boring.
Besides that, Argentina's claim was unfounded and had a lot to do with Argentina wanting to expand and little to do with a legitimate claim in the area.
You say:
“I believe the UK behavior over the Beagle channel was probably the major factor in Chile backing the UK in 1982. Both were connected.”
Now you are sounding like Dany Berger and friends with that conspiratorial tone. The two were connected ... by Argie agression.
@ Think
Thank you for the editing assistance.
Can I conclude then that once more the [CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME] of Chile succeeded where the [CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME] of Argentina failed?
(26) Condorito
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would rather prefer you to conclude that both [CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIMES] failed......... and PEACE won......
By the way....
Good bye to a man of peace....:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhnPVP23rzo
@1
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My thoughts on the subject exactly.
(I first visited Chile in 1993, it was good and stating to grow then, it's fantastic now. Huge progress and stable too! Chileans everywhere should be proud of setting such a great example to the rest of LatAm!)
In my view, Chile is the true political and economic leader in LatAm, just on statistics alone!
26 Condorito , 22 Think.
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME] No arguments there, but even if Satan is the president the minute a foreign power attempts to steal your territory the people will rally behind the leadership. Luckily in this case the Argentines withdrew at the last moment even though our navy had steamed into Argentine territorial waters searching for them. All's well that ends well.
Dear friend Condorito
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm saying that the Queen resolution was ignored due to several mistakes. One of that most important ones was that it arbitrated issues totslly out of her authority as mediator.
I am not looking for ghosts but, if Argentina had an issue with the UK due to the FI and Argentina had an issue with Chile due to some limits it's quite clear that the Queen shouldn't have accepted the responsibility. Or Argentina shouldn't have accepted the Queen as mediator. The link is quite clear.
No matter that, at that time, the UK and Argentina were friends and allies the link of interests between the UK and Chile was quite clear.
Would you accept Evo Morales as mediator between Argentina and Chile for a limit claim?
This last mediation that solved an issue between Chile and Peru was, to the contrary, settled in a balance way. Taking boht parties interests and making both parts cede part of their claims. So it was accepted by both parties.
Dear pgerman
Jan 28th, 2014 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pre 1982 I don't think you could have said the UK favored Chile over Argentina. Argentina would not have accepted the British arbitration if they though the Brits weren't neutral.
The point I make is that they entered a binding resolution and did not respect the result. If it had gone Argentina's way, I am quite sure they would have accepted it.
Do you think that if Argentina and the UK today decided to seek ICJ arbitrage over the FI and the result went to the UK, than Argentina would accept the result? I seriously doubt it.
Dear Condorito
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina and the UK had a long friedly realtionship since the independence of Argentina and the UK was mediator in several disputes between Argentina and Chile and they did a god job.
But the air was getting thick during the last decades due to the Falklands issue between them so, in fact, having accepted the mediation of the Queen was a big mistake.
Actually Argentina should not have accepted the British arbitration. That's quite clear.
About your question, I really don't know. I don't think that either Argentina or the UK would accept any mediation.
Basically because the situation changed a lot. Blood was spilled. This change it all !!!
Let's do the same intelectual exercise wit the oposite option....Would the UK accept to cede the FI if the result went to Argentina? Would it happen? Even with the oposition of the islandres? I don't think so.
The FI issue is a most important one for both sides than the Beagle Channel was for our countries and this issue between Chila and Peru is. Basically because it was a war.
The FI will have to be settled between both parties in a long term agreement such as the Hong Kong issue. I don't know if our eyes will see it.
28 ilsen
Jan 28th, 2014 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just a few of numbers...
1993. Chile GDP USD$50 billion, Arg GDP USD$236.5 billion. Approx 4.7 times bigger
Today Chile USD$301.9 billion, Argentina US$497 billion. Approx 1.6 times bigger. Remember 17 million vs 41 million inhabitants.
“Argentina US$497 billion”
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hardly! These days who knows? But definitely not that high!
Dear pgerman
Jan 28th, 2014 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that even the rational Argies like you struggle with the concept of what a binding agreement actually means should highlight the core of the issue -> Mr Think blames the “ [CRIMINAL & ILLEGAL MILITARY REGIME]” you blame the arbitration panel. See what I am saying?
Re the FI, I think they are gone for ever for Argentina. Argie policies have driven the islanders further than ever from Argentina. Although unlikely, I think it is more probable that the islanders would choose a future linked to Chile in some way. After all Chile offers a strong rule of law, commitment to international agreements (recent case), low corruption (on par with northern Europe), great economic freedom and so on.
@ 33 The Chilean perspective
You will get Narine (artist formerly know as Toby) all upset with those numbers.
@33 TCp
Jan 29th, 2014 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks, interesting to see th actual figures especially with the population factor to give further perspective.
@34
Point taken, they are not always so good with the numbers, didn't the Rosada Rockabilly Boy recently make a quiet revision?
Dear Condorito
Jan 29th, 2014 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I believe that a mediation must be fair and divide what is under discussion. Like the division of water between Chile and Peru.
As regards your last comment I don't think the current situation of Argentina will last much more.
Certain political practices, such as corruption, lack of respect for the private property, etc. simply are not sustainable over time. This corrupt and improvised system devours itself.
Sooner or later you it is going to sell out. It has always happened with corrupt regimes like Peronism.
A more serious establishment, fromed by non traditional parties, will grow ( the PRO in BUenos Aires, Socialism in Santa Fe, PO in Salta) and finally will end ruling the country. It's my though by also my hope
Have a nice day
Ilsen
Jan 29th, 2014 - 04:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can't lie about inflation for 5 years and expect your GDP figures to be correct.
Add in the fact that even the growth figures can't be trusted and you have a grossly over estimated GDP figure.
To add to the difficulty.... nominally if you use the market rate it drops radically. And you can't create a useable PPP rate as the high inflation makes it impossible.
No matter which way you cut it, Chile is much richer these days.
38 Anglotino
Jan 29th, 2014 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you, a workable PPP figure is impossible. We'll just have to wait until the new system starts in Argentina.
@38
Jan 29th, 2014 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0And so what if Argentina becomes the poorest nation in the Americas?
No, really, what?
Why is money the only thing worth measuring to you and everyone else here?
Don't you find that repulsive, judging by how much money one has?
Toblerine
Jan 29th, 2014 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0“And so what if Argentina becomes the poorest nation in the Americas?”
I did NOT say that.
“Why is money the only thing worth measuring to you and everyone else here?”
I did NOT say that.
“Don't you find that repulsive, judging by how much money one has?”
I did NOT say that.
What the hell did you read?
Don't even bother with Nostril, everyone knows he is a troll hiding behind a false persona.
Jan 29th, 2014 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too tiresome for words, you might as well have a debate with a bucket of sump oil....
Dear friend Condorito
Jan 29th, 2014 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to share the note that appears in the link with you.
It is an interesting note but, it also demonstrates, the unconscious and irresponsible manner in which the possibility of a conflict between Chile and Argentina was handled at that time.
http://aero-arg.blogspot.com.ar/2014/01/los-4c-skyhawk-sobre-chile.html
Any of these funny antics could have broken hostilities.
Ilsen
Jan 30th, 2014 - 04:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing makes Toblerine is appear quicker than proving that shim can't argue. Shim always runs and hides when cornered.
Can change the name but the actions are still the same.
So much fun!
Shim? who dat?
Jan 30th, 2014 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!