. According to the Court, the agreements before 1954 had “suggested an evolving understanding between the Parties concerning their maritime boundary” and the 1954 Agreement was “decisive in this respect.”[17]  Because the earlier agreements had also “expressed claims to the sea-bed and to waters above the sea-bed and their resources,” the Court found that the existing “boundary is an all-purpose one.”[18]. According to its agents, Peru had already declared its entitlement to this “outer triangle” (alta mar to Chile) of maritime space, but because it was on the Chilean side of the parallel, Peru’s rights had not been formally recognized. As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, Peru invoked Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá of 30 April 1948, to which both States were parties without reservation. In practical terms, there is an area where Chile and Peru would have overlapping claims were it not for the dividing line at the parallel. © Afr. Environment, Health, Science, and Technology, Human Rights and International Criminal Law, International Organizations and Governance, Law of Armed Conflict and International Security, Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute Resolution, International Court of Justice Defines Maritime Boundary Between Peru and Chile. 1 and extending to 80 nm. In the weeks leading up to the Court’s decision, both parties publicly stated that they would comply with the Court’s judgment; it remains to be seen whether this will be the case. Ct. H.P.R. It recalled that it had not been asked to do so in the Parties’ final submissions. of 3 June 1929”, and also to the recognition in favour of Peru … © 2020 The American Society of International Law [4] Proclamation No. All rights reserved. . The Court ruled that as the parallel boundary line was found to end at 80 nm from the coast, the “Chilean argument does not exist” and Court’s own delimitation of the overlapping entitlements utilizing the equidistance method rendered Peru’s claim moot. Asking the Court to delimit the shared maritime space, Peru argued that, under the Treaty of Lima, the appropriate starting point for any maritime boundary between the two States should be Point Concordia (on the coast) and not Boundary Marker No. ), The M/V “SAIGA” Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Prompt Release, MAYNTER-maysam center for strategic studies based on political weight index, risk, political risk, economic risk, strategic studies. In its Application, Peru claimed that “the maritime zones between Chile and Peru have never been delimited by agreement or otherwise” and that, accordingly, “the delimitation is to be determined by the Court in accordance with customary international law”. Phone +1-202-939-6001 Un différend existait entre les deux pays au sujet de la délimitation maritime depuis le 16 janvier 20081. [14] The Court found that Santiago Declaration had the status of an international treaty, but lacked “reference to the delimitation of maritime boundaries” and did not include information “expected in an agreement determining maritime boundaries, namely, specific co-ordinates or cartographic material.”  Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 58. Vous pouvez partager vos connaissances en l’améliorant (comment ?) Arguing that the Santiago Declaration should be read together with the 1952 and 1954 agreements and their respective travaux preparatoires, Chile asserted that sufficient facts existed to support its claim that a complete delimitation had taken place. 1 with the low-water line, and extends for 80 nautical miles along that parallel of latitude to Point A. Neither State has a significant continental shelf due to the tectonic convergence zone and deep ocean trench that lies immediately offshore from the Peruvian and Chilean coastlines. Colombia and Ecuador, relying on Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, requested copies of the pleadings and annexed documents produced in the case. [4] The Truman Proclamation also provided for delimitation of overlapping claims over the continental shelf, though not over any other shared maritime entitlement. [1] Peru contended that this line, extending from Hito No. The Court ruled that the various agreements from 1952-54,[14] within the context of the 1947 proclamations,[15] gave rise to a tacit agreement that an all-purpose maritime boundary existed along the parallel running through Boundary Marker No.