27 JANUARY 2014
JUDGMENT
MARITIME DISPUTE
(PERU v. CHILE)
___________
DIFFÉREND MARITIME
(PÉROU c. CHILI)
27 JANVIER 2014
ARRÊT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-15
I. GEOGRAPHY 16
II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 17-21
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 22-23
IV. WHETHER THERE IS AN AGREED MARITIME BOUNDARY 24-151
1. The 1947 Proclamations of Chile and Peru 25-44
2. The 1952 Santiago Declaration 45-70
3. The various 1954 Agreements 71-95
A. The Complementary Convention to the 1952 Santiago
Declaration 74-77
B. The Agreement relating to Measures of Supervision and
Control of the Maritime Zones of the Signatory Countries 78-79
C. The Agreement relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone 80-95
4. The 1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements 96-99
5. The nature of the agreed maritime boundary 100-102
6. The extent of the agreed maritime boundary 103-151
A. Fishing potential and activity 104-111
B. Contemporaneous developments in the law of the sea 112-118
C. Legislative practice 119-122
D. The 1955 Protocol of Accession 123-125
E. Enforcement activities 126-129
F. The 1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements 130
G. Negotiations with Bolivia (1975-1976) 131-133
H. Positions of the Parties at the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea 134-135
I. The 1986 Bákula Memorandum 136-142
J. Practice after 1986 143-148
K. The extent of the agreed maritime boundary: conclusion 149-151
V. THE STARTING-POINT OF THE AGREED MARITIME BOUNDARY 152-176
VI. THE COURSE OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY FROM POINT A 177-195
VII. CONCLUSION 196-197
OPERATIVE CLAUSE 198
___________
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2014
2014
27 January
General List
No. 137
27 January 2014
MARITIME DISPUTE
(PERU v. CHILE)
Geography Historical background 1929 Treaty of Lima between Chile and Peru
1947 Proclamations of Chile and Peru Twelve instruments negotiated by Chile, Ecuador and
Peru.
*
No international maritime boundary established by 1947 Proclamations No shared
understanding of the Parties concerning maritime delimitation Necessity of establishing the
lateral limits of their maritime zones in the future.
1952 Santiago Declaration is an international treaty Rules of interpretation No
express reference to delimitation of maritime boundaries Certain elements relevant however to
maritime delimitation Ordinary meaning of paragraph IV Maritime zones of island
territories Scope of 1952 Santiago Declaration restricted to agreement on limits between
certain insular maritime zones and zones generated by continental coasts Object and
purpose Supplementary means of interpretation confirm that no general maritime delimitation
was effected by 1952 Santiago Declaration Suggestion of existence of some sort of a shared
understanding of a more general nature concerning maritime boundaries 1952 Santiago
Declaration did not establish a lateral maritime boundary between Chile and Peru along the
parallel. - 2 -
1954 Agreements Complementary Convention to 1952 Santiago Declaration Primary
purpose to assert signatory States’ claims to sovereignty and jurisdiction made in 1952
Agreement relating to Measures of Supervision and Control of Maritime Zones No indication as
to location or nature of maritime boundaries Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement Not
limited to the Ecuador-Peru maritime boundary Delay in ratification without bearing on scope
and effect of Agreement Acknowledgment of existence of an agreed maritime boundary Tacit
agreement Tacit agreement cemented by 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement
No indication of nature and extent of maritime boundary 1964 Bazán Opinion Conclusion of
the Court as to the existence of an agreed maritime boundary not altered.
1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements Limited purpose and geographical scope No
reference to a pre-existent delimitation agreement Arrangements based on presumed existence
of a maritime boundary extending along parallel beyond 12 nautical miles No indication of
extent and nature of maritime boundary.
Nature of agreed maritime boundary All-purpose maritime boundary.
Extent of agreed maritime boundary Assessment of relevant practice of the Parties
pre-1954 Fishing potential and activity Species taken in the early 1950s were generally to be
found within a range of 60 nautical miles from the coast Orientation of the coast Location of
main ports in the region Zone of tolerance along the parallel for small fishing boats
Principal fishing activity carried out by small boats Fisheries activity, in itself, not
determinative of extent of the boundary Parties however unlikely to have considered the agreed
maritime boundary to extend to 200-nautical-mile limit Contemporaneous developments in the
law of the sea State practice Work of the International Law Commission Claim made in
1952 Santiago Declaration did not correspond to the international law of that time No evidence
to conclude that the agreed maritime boundary along parallel extended beyond 80 nautical miles.
Assessment of relevant practice of the Parties post-1954 Legislative practice of the
Parties 1955 Protocol of Accession to 1952 Santiago Declaration Enforcement activities
1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements Negotiations with Bolivia (1975-1976) Positions of the
Parties at Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1986 Bákula
Memorandum Practice after 1986 No basis to put into question the Court’s earlier
conclusion.
In view of entirety of relevant evidence presented to the Court, agreed maritime boundary
between the Parties extends to a distance of 80 nautical miles along the parallel.
* - 3 -
Starting-point of the agreed maritime boundary 1929 Treaty of Lima The Court not
asked to determine location of starting-point of land boundary identified as “Concordia”
Boundary Marker No. 1 1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements serve as compelling evidence that
the agreed maritime boundary follows the parallel that passes through Boundary Marker No. 1
Point Concordia may not coincide with starting-point of maritime boundary Starting-point of
maritime boundary identified as the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through
Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low-water line.
*
Delimitation to be effected beginning at endpoint of agreed maritime boundary (Point A)
Method of delimitation Three-stage procedure.
First stage Construction of a provisional equidistance line starting at Point A
Determination of base points Provisional equidistance line runs until intersection with the
200-nautical-mile limit measured from Chilean baselines (Point B).
Peru’s second final submission moot No need for the Court to rule thereon.
Course of the maritime boundary from Point B Boundary runs along the
200-nautical-mile limit measured from the Chilean baselines until intersection of the
200-nautical-mile limits of the Parties (Point C).
Second stage Relevant circumstances calling for an adjustment of the provisional
equidistance line No basis for adjusting the provisional equidistance line.
Third stage Disproportionality test Calculation does not purport to be precise No
evidence of significant disproportion calling into question equitable nature of provisional
equidistance line.
*
Course of the maritime boundary Geographical co-ordinates to be determined by the
Parties in accordance with the Judgment.
JUDGMENT
Present: President TOMKA; Vice-President SEPÚLVEDA-AMOR; Judges OWADA, ABRAHAM,
KEITH, BENNOUNA, SKOTNIKOV, CANÇADO TRINDADE, YUSUF, XUE, DONOGHUE,
GAJA, SEBUTINDE, BHANDARI; Judges ad hoc GUILLAUME, ORREGO VICUÑA;
Registrar COUVREUR.
- 4 -
In the case concerning the maritime dispute,
between
the Republic of Peru,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Allan Wagner, Ambassador of Peru to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, former
Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Minister of Defence, former Secretary-General of the
Andean Community,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Rafael Roncagliolo, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
as Special Envoy;
H.E. Mr. José Antonio García Belaunde, Ambassador, former Minister for Foreign Affairs,
H.E. Mr. Jorge Chávez Soto, Ambassador, member of the Peruvian Delegation to the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, former Adviser of the Minister for
Foreign Affairs on Law of the Sea Matters,
as Co-Agents;
Mr. Rodman Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, member of the New York Bar,
Eversheds LLP, Paris,
Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., member of the English Bar, Emeritus Professor of International
Law, Oxford University, associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, former
Member and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, associate member
of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Tullio Treves, Professor at the Faculty of Law, State University of Milan, former judge
of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Senior Consultant, Curtis,
Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle, Milan, member of the Institut de droit international,
Sir Michael Wood, K.C.M.G., member of the English Bar, Member of the International Law
Commission,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Eduardo Ferrero, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, former Minister for
Foreign Affairs, member of the Peruvian Delegation to the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea, - 5 -
Mr. Vicente Ugarte del Pino, former President of the Supreme Court of Justice, former
President of the Court of Justice of the Andean Community, former Dean of the Lima Bar
Association,
Mr. Roberto MacLean, former judge of the Supreme Court of Justice, former Member of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration,
H.E. Mr. Manuel Rodríguez Cuadros, Ambassador of Peru to UNESCO, former Minister for
Foreign Affairs,
as State Advocates;
Ms Marisol Agüero Colunga, Minister-Counsellor, LL.M., former Adviser of the Minister
for Foreign Affairs on Law of the Sea Matters, Co-ordinator of the Peruvian Delegation,
H.E. Mr. Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, MIPP, Ambassador, Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs on Law of the Sea Matters,
Mr. Juan José Ruda, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Legal Adviser of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel;
Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN),
University of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Mr. Eran Sthoeger, LL.M., New York University School of Law,
as Assistant Counsel;
Mr. Carlos Enrique Gamarra, Vice Admiral (retired), Hydrographer, Adviser to the Office
for Law of the Sea of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Special Adviser;
Mr. Ramón Bahamonde, M.A., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Alejandro Deustua, M.A., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Pablo Moscoso de la Cuba, LL.M., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Legal Advisers;
Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping,
Mr. Jaime Valdez, Lieutenant Commander (retired), National Cartographer of the Peruvian
Delegation, - 6 -
Mr. Aquiles Carcovich, Captain (retired), Cartographer,
Mr. Thomas Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping,
as Technical Advisers;
Mr. Paul Duclos, Minister-Counsellor, LL.M., M.A., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Alfredo Fortes, Counsellor, LL.M., Embassy of Peru in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. José Antonio Torrico, Counsellor, M.A., Embassy of Peru in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr. César Talavera, First Secretary, M.Sc., Embassy of Peru in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Advisers;
Ms Evelyn Campos Sánchez, Embassy of Peru in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ph.D. candidate, Amsterdam Center for International Law, University of Amsterdam,
Ms Charis Tan, Advocate and Solicitor, Singapore, member of the New York Bar, Solicitor,
England and Wales, Eversheds LLP,
Mr. Raymundo Tullio Treves, Ph.D. candidate, Max Planck Research School for Successful
Disputes Settlement, Heidelberg,
as Assistants,
and
the Republic of Chile,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Albert van Klaveren Stork, Ambassador, former Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Professor at the University of Chile,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Alfredo Moreno Charme, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile,
as National Authority;
H.E. Mr. Juan Martabit Scaff, Ambassador of Chile to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
H.E. Ms María Teresa Infante Caffi, National Director of Frontiers and Limits, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Professor at the University of Chile, member of the Institut de droit
international,
as Co-Agents; - 7 -
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies and
Development, Geneva, and at the University of Paris II (Panthéon-Assas), associate
member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. James R. Crawford, S.C., LL.D., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law,
University of Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, Matrix
Chambers,
Mr. Jan Paulsson, President of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration,
President of the Administrative Tribunal of the OECD, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
LLP,
Mr. David A. Colson, Attorney-at-Law, Patton Boggs LLP, Washington D.C., member of
the Bars of California and the District of Columbia,
Mr. Luigi Condorelli, Professor of International Law, University of Florence,
Mr. Georgios Petrochilos, Avocat à la Cour and Advocate at the Greek Supreme Court,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth, Q.C., member of the English Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex
Court Chambers,
Mr. Claudio Grossman, Dean, R. Geraldson Professor of International Law, American
University, Washington College of Law,
as Counsel and Advocates;
H.E. Mr. Hernan Salinas, Ambassador, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Professor, Catholic University of Chile,
H.E. Mr. Luis Winter, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Enrique Barros Bourie, Professor, University of Chile,
Mr. Julio Faúndez, Professor, University of Warwick,
Ms Ximena Fuentes Torrijo, Professor, University of Chile,
Mr. Claudio Troncoso Repetto, Professor, University of Chile,
Mr. Andres Jana, Professor, University of Chile,
Ms Mariana Durney, Legal Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. John Ranson, Legal Officer, Professor of International Law, Chilean Navy,