sector bebidas

LEED V4 Y C2C (CRADLE TO CRADLE)

LEED V4 Y C2C están mejor relacionados desde finales del 2013 gracias al nuevo apartado que contiene la nueva versión de LEED V4.

LEED V4 tiene un nuevo apartado llamado " Materials & Resources" y en su crédito nº 4  "Building Disclosure and Optimization—Material Ingredients", anima a los diseñadores a utilizar productos cuya composición química esté auditada utilizando una metodología aceptada y de esta manera minimizar el uso y la generación de substancias dañinas.

Para saber más http://www.usgbc.org/v4


La certificación  C2C (Cradle to Cradle) , es una de las pocas metodologías existentes en el mercado que están aceptadas por LEED V4 y por lo tanto todos los productos certificados podrán optar directamente  a los dos puntos que concede dicho apartado nº 4 "Building Disclosure and Optimization—Material Ingredients".

Para saber más http://www.c2ccertified.org/leed

Como saben los productos DEPOLOSUN de ESPACIO SOLAR tienen certificación C2C categoría SILVER y por lo tanto optan a estos 2 puntos extras.

Para saber más http://www.espaciosolar.com/arquitectura-sostenible.htm

Esto es una muy buena noticia pues deja más claro el camino a conseguir puntos extras en el diseño de edificios LEED, por la simple utilización de productos C2C

No duden en consultarnos en caso de necesitar más ayuda en este respecto.

Sector Construccion

Sector Siderurgica Metalurgia

sector petrolero

sector minero

sector agroindustrias

rubros de la empresa

Sectores destacados
Agroindustria


Un año menos dulce

Tras superar su récord histórico en 2011, el valor de las agroexportaciones peruanas no escapó a la coyuntura internacional... Ver más
Bebidas / Licores


Buen trago

La industria de bebidas peruana no se detiene, empujada especialmente por el mercado de aguas, que sigue ganando terreno...Ver más
Energía Eléctrica


Brillo continuo

Tras cerrar 2012 con un crecimiento de 6%, la demanda energética en el Perú continúa su tendencia al alza impulsada por el crecimiento...Ver más
Petróleo y Gas


Fondo sin pozos

Mientras crece la demanda de hidrocarburos en el país, que aumentó cerca de 50% entre 2001 y 2012, la producción...Ver más
Siderurgia / Metalurgia


Metales robustos

Según la Asociación Latinoamericana del Acero, el Perú fue uno de los países que impulsó el crecimiento del consumo de aceros...Ver más
Alimentos


Diente alicaído

2012 fue un año regular para la industria de alimentos peruana. Según la gerencia de estudios económicos de...Ver más
Comercio


Corazón económico

Un órgano vital de la demanda interna sin duda es el comercio moderno. Y este parece estar más jovial que nunca. De acuerdo a la Asociación...Ver más
Minería


Malos tiempos: protestas y precios

El sector minero en 2012 perdió fuerza en el Perú afectado por unos menores precios de los metales y por los conflictos...Ver más
Química / Farmacéutica


Locomotora en marcha

Los últimos 12 meses para la industria químico-farmacéutica han sido positivos, pero han generado retos...Ver más
Telecomunicaciones


Fondo sin pozos

Mientras crece la demanda de hidrocarburos en el país, que aumentócerca de 50% entre 2001 y 2012, la producción...Ver más
Servicios Financieros


Billeteras con futuro

Pese a la incertidumbre que rondó a algunas de las más grandes economías del mundo, el sector financiero peruano...Ver más
Construcción


Bloque sólido

En 2012 el sector construcción fue protagonista –nuevamente– de la producción nacional. De acuerdo a cifras oficiales...Ver más
Pesca


Marea movida

A diferencia de otros rubros, el de pesca sufrió un infarto sectorial en 2012. De acuerdo con el INEI, el rubro cayó 11,9%, resultado motivado por el menor...Ver más
Servicios de salud


Futuro saludable

Un sector que ha mostrado un comportamiento muy sólido desde hace un quinquenio es el de salud. Según la Clínica ...Ver más
Textil / Calzado


Venezuela, fan del textil peruano

El comité textil de la Sociedad Nacional de Industrias vaticinó que para 2012 las exportaciones textiles...Ver más

¡Ya hay fecha de estreno! Vuelve Cosmos

El Cosmos lo es todo. El Cosmos es lo que te envuelve y también tú. Tú también eres el Cosmos porque como decía Carl Sagan "somos polvo de estrellas". No tan solo vives en el Cosmos. El Cosmos también vive en ti. La gracia del Cosmos y de Cosmos es que siempre han estado ahí. El primero porque es así. Y punto. El segundo, porque desde que en los 80 viajó del Pirulí de Torrespaña hasta los corazones de muchos de nosotros, lo hizo para quedarse. Y se quedó en nuestros corazones junto a su presentador, el carismático Carl Sagan.

Pues bien, leía esta tarde a mi gran amigo Luis Alfonso Gámez del blog Magonia, que Cosmos volverá y a lo hará a lo grande. Lo hará emitiéndose en más de 180 países y en 48 lenguas el próximo día 10 de Marzo a las 23h.. Se podrá ver en los canales españoles de Fox. Es decir: National Geographic Channel, Fox, Fox Crime, Nat Geo Wild y Viajar. Vuelve la mejor serie de divulgación científica de la historia y de la mano del más digno sucesor de Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson acompañado de dos de los creativos de la serie original: la viuda de Sagan, Ann Druyan y Steven Soter, a los que esta vez acompaña Seth MacFarlane, el creador de Padre de Familia, TED o Padre Made in Usa.

Vuelve además con un estilo renovado. Nueva gente aunque antiguos creativos que intentarán mantener el espíritu de la serie original. Vuelve con nueva música, más actual, que no peor. Vuelve una nueva nave de la imaginación tan fantástica y cómoda como la otra. Pero sobre todo vuelve para hacer palpitar de nuevo los corazones cuando se hable del Calendario Cósmico o cuando se medite sobre las consecuencias de guerras entre nosotros. Lo hace para reflexionar sobre la situación política mundial. Seguro. O para hacernos viajar al interior de los objetos más inimaginables que se os ocurran. Desde lo más grande a lo más pequeño. Vuelve porque así son las cosas más bonitas: las haces, las dejas, las echas de menos, y poco a poco casi sin darte cuenta, vuelves a escribir.

La ciencia no es aburrida. La ciencia mola. La ciencia da respuesta a las cosas que nunca pude responder. La ciencia emociona. La ciencia te hace crecer. Y sobre todo, la ciencia, enamora. Lo fácil sería desquererse, pero ¿quién rebobina este cuento? Esta vez, seguro que volverá a entrar en el corazón de millones de personas. La ciencia no tiene ni se merece un lugar en esa absurda competición por la audiencia, teniendo como rivalea a estafadores con túnicas. La ciencia es prime-time. El Cosmos es prime-time. Se merece trato de superproducción. Porque no se me ocurre mejor superproducción que la historia de todo. La historia de todos nosotros (y no lo último de Facebook).

Vuelve Cosmos y vuelve la ciencia más apasionante y emocionante. Pero también vuelven reflexiones sobre religión. Sobre Política. Arte. Historia. Sociedad. Escepticismo. Pensamiento Crítico. Humanismo. Cultura. Vuelve TODO. Y toda vuelta es en realidad un quédate conmigo. Sea en el Empire State o en el Pirulí. Tú, también eres el Cosmos. Que como dijo Sagan: "El Cosmos es TODO lo que es, o lo que fue, o lo que será alguna vez”.

P.D: os dejo los dos trailers. El primero tiene ya unos meses. El segundo es de hace pocos días y para anunciar la fecha de estreno.

LUZ NATURAL 50 M BAJO TIERRA !!!!

Los Tubos de Luz DEPLOSUN  que diseñamos en ESPACIO SOLAR, es un producto industrializado, llevado  hasta el máximo nivel de eficiencia con el mínimo precio posible para ser vendido de forma masiva en el mercado . Pero existen otras formas de implementar Tubos de luz , mucho más espectaculares y singulares. En este artículo les presentamos la que Oscar Tusquets ha diseñado para Metro de Napoles:

"Construir el metro de cualquier ciudad italiana debe de ser una de las tareas más sorprendentes, gratificantes y desesperantes  a las que se puede enfrentar un ingeniero, un arquitecto o un político. Nápoles no ha sido una excepción. Tal vez por eso, el arquitecto Oscar Tusquets ha querido llevar luz 50 metros bajo tierra para celebrar el encuentro del suelo con el fondo del mar y para alcanzar en las profundidades un cielo estrellado.

Tusquets ha trabajado durante siete años en la estación Toledo de la línea uno. En la esquina que forman la Vía Diaz y la Via Montecalvario, una zona comercial en el centro de la ciudad, arranca un descenso hacia el metro que tiene tanto de escenográfico como de invitación al viaje. Más cerca de  20.000 leguas de viaje submarino que de Viaje al centro de la tierra, en la estación estalla un espectáculo sorprendente, romántico e imposible a la vez: la celebración de la luz en el subsuelo, la conmemoración del mar en la tierra y, finalmente, la búsqueda del cielo en el infierno.

¿Cómo alcanza la luz las profundidades del suelo napolitano? Una serie de conos truncados con secciones hexagonales conduce la luz del día hacia el interior al tiempo que dichos conos de acero funcionan como esculturas públicas en la plaza que cubre la parada de metro. Arte y ciudad, infierno y cielo, agua y aire, los términos se confunden en una estación que, más allá de invitar al viaje, constituye en sí misma todo un viaje."

Fuente : El Pais

TUBO DE LUZ. NUEVO CATALOGO DIGITAL ESPACIO SOLAR

En ESPACIO SOLAR acabamos de lanzar nuestro nuevo catálogo Digital de la gama DEPLOSUN.

Dicho catálogo tiene como singularidad que se ha diseñado para ser editable en cada país por nuestros distribuidores , pudiendo de esta forma aportar imágenes y Logos  locales .

También se ha editado en Español e Inglés.

Esperamos que sea de utilidad para toda nuestra red de distribuidores nacionales e internacionales.

Solicitar catálogo en http://www.espaciosolar.com/contact.htm

LUZ NATURAL EN LA UNIVERSIDAD ROVIRA I VIRGILI. 28 DEPLOSUN FLAT TOP

Iluminación natural en la nueva ampliación de la Universisdad Rovira I Virgili en Tarragona.

La Universidad Rovira i Virgili de Tarragona ha ampliado recientemente sus instalaciones ubicadas en la avda. Cataluña, de dicha ciudad. 

 Se han creado nuevos espacios y nuevos servicios, para atender a las nuevas necesidades de los estudiantes. 

Espacio Solar se puso en contacto con el despacho de arquitectos Bardaji & Teixidor Associats., y juntos estudiaron la mejor propuesta para dotar a este nuevo espacio situado por debajo de la rasante, de la calidad de la luz natural. 

Con DEPLOSUN  Flat Top, se consigue el nivel óptimo de luz natural en el interior, a la vez que la cubierta superior es transitable en su totalidad. 

DEPLOSUN FLAT TOP aporta:

1.   Tubo de luz integrado en el pavimento, no “molesta”

2.   Tubo de sol realizado en triple cristal laminado de seguridad, que lo convierte en una aliado perfecto contra roturas.

3.   Certificado de antiresbalicidad  solicitado por el CTE

4.   Resistencia a sobrecargas diseñadas para peatones.

LUZ NATURAL EN PARKING PUBLICO AYUNTAMIENTO BARCELONA

Tubo de Luz en  con cúpulas transitables DEPLOSUN
FLAT TOP para iluminar parkings de maquinaria del ayuntamiento de Barcelona .

Situación: Barcelona

Fecha: Abril 2013

Cliente: Ayuntamiento de Barcelona

El Ayto., de Barcelona junto con la empresa Clabsa, proyectan la rehabilitación de ciertas zonas de la ciudad, dejando de ser zonas degradadas y convirtiéndose en agradables jardines públicos que en su subsuelo guardan gran parte de la maquinaria necesaria para la limpieza de la ciudad.

Espacio Solar en contacto con los arquitectos del Area de Medi Ambient de la ciudad, estudian y planifican la incorporación de nuestras cúpulas transitables mod. Flat Top, en estos jardines públicos.  Permiten no interferir en los paseos que puedan realizarse en estas zonas gracias a su tratamiento antideslizante y a su vez, captan y conducen la luz al interior de estos parkings, permitiendo así una mayor sostenibilidad en sus instalaciones.

Dicha instalación permite utilizar las instalaciones durante el día sin necesidad de utilizar la iluminación artificial, consiguiéndose ahorros energéticos de un 40% - 50% y por lo tanto ahorros económicos. Para ver más información sobre ahorroshttp://www.espaciosolar.com/eficiencia-energetica.htm

27 de enero del 2014 del 2000 al 2014

Tacna
A
Arica
PERU
BOLIVIA
the equidistance line
B: endpoint of the maritime boundary along
C: endpoint of the maritime boundary (intersection of
200 nautical miles
C
P
OCEAN
ACIFIC
B
the 200-nautical-mile limits of the Parties)
A
: endpoint of the agreed maritime boundary
from Chile's coast
2
from Peru's coast
00 nautical miles
- 66 -- 67 -
VII. CONCLUSION
196. The Court concludes that the maritime boundary between the Parties starts at the
intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low-water
line, and extends for 80 nautical miles along that parallel of latitude to Point A. From this point,
the maritime boundary runs along the equidistance line to Point B, and then along the
200-nautical-mile limit measured from the Chilean baselines to Point C.
*
197. In view of the circumstances of the present case, the Court has defined the course of the
maritime boundary between the Parties without determining the precise geographical co-ordinates.
Moreover, the Court has not been asked to do so in the Parties’ final submissions. The Court
expects that the Parties will determine these co-ordinates in accordance with the present Judgment,
in the spirit of good neighbourliness.
*
* *
198. For these reasons,
THE COURT,
(1) By fifteen votes to one,
Decides that the starting-point of the single maritime boundary delimiting the respective
maritime areas between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile is the intersection of the
parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low-water line;
IN FAVOUR: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,
Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Donoghue, Sebutinde,
Bhandari; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Orrego Vicuña;
AGAINST: Judge Gaja; - 68 -
(2) By fifteen votes to one,
Decides that the initial segment of the single maritime boundary follows the parallel of
latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 westward;
IN FAVOUR: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,
Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja, Bhandari;
Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Orrego Vicuña;
AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde;
(3) By ten votes to six,
Decides that this initial segment runs up to a point (Point A) situated at a distance of
80 nautical miles from the starting-point of the single maritime boundary;
IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna,
Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Guillaume;
AGAINST: President Tomka; Judges Xue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Orrego
Vicuña;
(4) By ten votes to six,
Decides that from Point A, the single maritime boundary shall continue south-westward
along the line equidistant from the coasts of the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile, as
measured from that point, until its intersection (at Point B) with the 200-nautical-mile limit
measured from the baselines from which the territorial sea of the Republic of Chile is measured.
From Point B, the single maritime boundary shall continue southward along that limit until it
reaches the point of intersection (Point C) of the 200-nautical-mile limits measured from the
baselines from which the territorial seas of the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile,
respectively, are measured;
IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna,
Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Guillaume;
AGAINST: President Tomka; Judges Xue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Orrego
Vicuña;
(5) By fifteen votes to one,
Decides that, for the reasons given in paragraph 189 above, it does not need to rule on the
second final submission of the Republic of Peru.
IN FAVOUR: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,
Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja,
Sebutinde, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Guillaume;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Orrego Vicuña.
- 69 -
Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace,
The Hague, this twenty-seventh day of January, two thousand and fourteen, in three copies, one of
which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of
the Republic of Peru and the Government of the Republic of Chile, respectively.
(Signed) Peter TOMKA,
President.
(Signed) Philippe COUVREUR,
Registrar.
President TOMKA and Vice-President SEPÚLVEDA-AMOR append declarations to the
Judgment of the Court; Judge OWADA appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the
Court; Judge SKOTNIKOV appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judges XUE,
GAJA, BHANDARI and Judge ad hoc ORREGO VICUÑA append a joint dissenting opinion
to the Judgment of the Court; Judges DONOGHUE and GAJA append declarations to the
Judgment of the Court; Judge SEBUTINDE appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment
of the Court; Judge ad hoc GUILLAUME appends a declaration to the Judgment of the Court;
Judge ad hoc ORREGO VICUÑA appends a separate, partly concurring and partly dissenting, opinion
to the Judgment of the Court.
(Initialled) P. T.
(Initialled) Ph. C.

27 de enero del 2014 del 90 al 2000

preparing for the materialization of the parallel running through Boundary Marker No. 1, which the
delegates understood to be the maritime frontier, and that the delegates communicated such
understanding to their respective Governments.
165. The Governments of both Parties then confirmed this understanding. The Note of
5 August 1968 from the Secretary-General of Foreign Affairs of Peru to the chargé d’affaires of
Chile states:
“I am pleased to inform Your Honour that the Government of Peru approves in
their entirety the terms of the document signed on the Peruvian-Chilean border on
26 April 1968 by the representatives of both countries in relation to the installation of
leading marks to materialise the parallel of the maritime frontier.
As soon as Your Honour informs me that the Government of Chile is in
agreement, we will be pleased to enter into the necessary discussions in order to
determine the date on which the Joint Commission may meet in order to verify the
position of Boundary Marker No. 1 and indicate the definitive location of the towers
or leading marks . . .”
The Court notes Peru’s approval of the entirety of the document dated 26 April 1968. - 59 -
166. The Chilean response of 29 August 1968 from the Embassy of Chile to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Peru is in the following terms:
“The Embassy of Chile presents its compliments to the Honourable Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and has the honour to refer to the Meeting of the Joint
Chilean-Peruvian Commission held on 25 and 26 April 1968 in relation to the study of
the installation of the leading marks visible from the sea to materialise the parallel of
the maritime frontier originating at Boundary Marker No. 1.
On this point, the Embassy of Chile is pleased to accept on behalf of the
Government of Chile the proposals which the technical representatives of both
countries included in the Act which they signed on 28 [sic] April 1968 with a view to
taking the measures for the abovementioned signalling in order to act as a warning to
fishing vessels that normally navigate in the maritime frontier zone.
Given that the parallel which it is intended to materialise is the one which
corresponds to the geographical situation indicated by Boundary Marker No. 1 as
referred to in the Act signed in Lima on 1 August 1930, the Chilean Government
agrees that an ad hoc Joint Commission should be constituted as soon as possible for
the purpose of verifying the position of this pyramid and that, in addition, the said
Commission should determine the position of the sites where the leading marks are to
be installed.”
167. The Act of the Chile-Peru Mixed Commission in Charge of Verifying the Location of
Boundary Marker No. 1 and Signalling the Maritime Boundary of 22 August 1969 (hereinafter the
“1969 Act”), signed by the delegates of both Parties, introduces its task using the following
language:
“The undersigned Representatives of Chile and of Peru, appointed by their
respective Governments for the purposes of verifying the original geographical
position of the concrete-made Boundary Marker number one (No. 1) of the common
frontier and for determining the points of location of the Alignment Marks that both
countries have agreed to install in order to signal the maritime boundary and
physically to give effect to the parallel that passes through the aforementioned
Boundary Marker number one . . .” (Emphasis added.)
168. The 1969 Act recommends the rebuilding of the damaged Boundary Marker No. 1 on
its original location, which remained visible. The 1969 Act also includes a section entitled Joint
Report signed by the Heads of each Party’s Delegation, describing their task as follows:
“The undersigned Heads of Delegations of Chile and of Peru submit to their
respective Governments the present Report on the state of repair of the boundary
markers in the section of the Chile-Peru frontier which they have had the opportunity
to inspect on the occasion of the works which they have been instructed to conduct in
order to verify the location of Boundary Marker number one and to signal the
maritime boundary.” - 60 -
169. The Court observes that both Parties thus clearly refer to their understanding that the
task which they are jointly undertaking involves the materialization of the parallel of the existing
maritime frontier, with such parallel understood to run through Boundary Marker No. 1.
170. In order to determine the starting-point of the maritime boundary, the Court has
considered certain cartographic evidence presented by the Parties. The Court observes that Peru
presents a number of official maps of Arica, dated 1965 and 1966, and of Chile, dated 1955, 1961
and 1963, published by the Instituto Geográfico Militar de Chile, as well as an excerpt from
Chilean Nautical Chart 101 of 1989. However, these materials largely focus on the location of the
point “Concordia” on the coast and do not purport to depict any maritime boundary.
171. The Court similarly notes that a number of instances of Peruvian practice subsequent to
1968 relied upon by Chile are not relevant as they address the issue of the location of the
Peru-Chile land boundary.
172. The only Chilean map referred to by Peru which appears to depict the maritime
boundary along a parallel passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 is an excerpt from Chilean
Nautical Chart 1111 of 1998. This map, however, confirms the agreement between the Parties of
1968-1969. The Court considers that it is unable to draw any inference from the 30-year delay in
such cartographic depiction by Chile.
173. The evidence presented in relation to fishing and other maritime practice in the region
does not contain sufficient detail to be useful in the present circumstances where the starting-points
of the maritime boundary claimed by each of the Parties are separated by a mere 8 seconds of
latitude, nor is this evidence legally significant.
174. The Court considers that the maritime boundary which the Parties intended to signal
with the lighthouse arrangements was constituted by the parallel passing through Boundary Marker
No. 1. Both Parties subsequently implemented the recommendations of the 1969 Act by building
the lighthouses as agreed, thus signalling the parallel passing through Boundary Marker No. 1. The
1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements therefore serve as compelling evidence that the agreed
maritime boundary follows the parallel that passes through Boundary Marker No. 1.
175. The Court is not called upon to take a position as to the location of Point Concordia,
where the land frontier between the Parties starts. It notes that it could be possible for the
aforementioned point not to coincide with the starting-point of the maritime boundary, as it was
just defined. The Court observes, however, that such a situation would be the consequence of the
agreements reached between the Parties. - 61 -
176. The Court thus concludes that the starting-point of the maritime boundary between the
Parties is the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with
the low-water line.
VI. THE COURSE OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY FROM POINT A
177. Having concluded that an agreed single maritime boundary exists between the Parties,
and that that boundary starts at the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary
Marker No. 1 with the low-water line, and continues for 80 nautical miles along that parallel, the
Court will now determine the course of the maritime boundary from that point on.
178. While Chile has signed and ratified UNCLOS, Peru is not a party to this instrument.
Both Parties claim 200-nautical-mile maritime entitlements. Neither Party claims an extended
continental shelf in the area with which this case is concerned. Chile’s claim consists of a
12-nautical-mile territorial sea and an exclusive economic zone and continental shelf extending to
200 nautical miles from the coast. Peru claims a 200-nautical-mile “maritime domain”. Peru’s
Agent formally declared on behalf of his Government that “[t]he term ‘maritime domain’ used in
[Peru’s] Constitution is applied in a manner consistent with the maritime zones set out in the
1982 Convention”. The Court takes note of this declaration which expresses a formal undertaking
by Peru.
179. The Court proceeds on the basis of the provisions of Articles 74, paragraph 1, and 83,
paragraph 1, of UNCLOS which, as the Court has recognized, reflect customary international law
(Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain),
Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 91, para. 167; Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), p. 674, para. 139). The texts of these
provisions are identical, the only difference being that Article 74 refers to the exclusive economic
zone and Article 83 to the continental shelf. They read as follows:
“The delimitation of the exclusive economic zone [continental shelf] between
States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of
international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.”
180. The methodology which the Court usually employs in seeking an equitable solution
involves three stages. In the first, it constructs a provisional equidistance line unless there are
compelling reasons preventing that. At the second stage, it considers whether there are relevant
circumstances which may call for an adjustment of that line to achieve an equitable result. At the
third stage, the Court conducts a disproportionality test in which it assesses whether the effect of
the line, as adjusted, is such that the Parties’ respective shares of the relevant area are markedly
disproportionate to the lengths of their relevant coasts (Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea
(Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, pp. 101-103, paras. 115-122; Territorial
and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), pp. 695-696,
paras. 190-193). - 62 -
181. In the present case, Peru proposed that the three-step approach be followed in the
delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two States. Peru makes the three following
points. First, the relevant coasts and the relevant area within which the delimitation is to be
effected are circumscribed by the coasts of each Party lying within 200 nautical miles of the
starting-point of their land boundary. The construction of a provisional equidistance line within
that area is a straightforward exercise. Secondly, there are no special circumstances calling for an
adjustment of the provisional equidistance line and it therefore represents an equitable maritime
delimitation: the resulting line effects an equal division of the Parties’ overlapping maritime
entitlements and does not result in any undue encroachment on the projections of their respective
coasts or any cut-off effect. Thirdly, the application of the element of proportionality as an ex post
facto test confirms the equitable nature of the equidistance line.
182. Chile advanced no arguments on this matter. Its position throughout the proceedings
was that the Parties had already delimited the whole maritime area in dispute, by agreement, in
1952, and that, accordingly, no maritime delimitation should be performed by the Court.
183. In the present case, the delimitation of the maritime area must begin at the endpoint of
the agreed maritime boundary which the Court has determined is 80 nautical miles long (Point A).
In practice, a number of delimitations begin not at the low-water line but at a point further seaward,
as a result of a pre-existing agreement between the parties (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary
in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984,
pp. 332-333, para. 212; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002,
pp. 431-432, paras. 268-269; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 130, para. 218). The situation the Court faces is, however,
unusual in that the starting-point for the delimitation in this case is much further from the coast:
80 nautical miles from the closest point on the Chilean coast and about 45 nautical miles from the
closest point on the Peruvian coast.
184. The usual methodology applied by the Court has the aim of achieving an equitable
solution. In terms of that methodology, the Court now proceeds to the construction of a provisional
equidistance line which starts at the endpoint of the existing maritime boundary (Point A).
185. In order to construct such a line, the Court first selects appropriate base points. In view
of the location of Point A at a distance of 80 nautical miles from the coast along the parallel, the
nearest initial base point on the Chilean coast will be situated near the starting-point of the
maritime boundary between Chile and Peru, and on the Peruvian coast at a point where the arc of a
circle with an 80-nautical-mile radius from Point A intersects with the Peruvian coast. For the
purpose of constructing a provisional equidistance line, only those points on the Peruvian coast
which are more than 80 nautical miles from Point A can be matched with points at an equivalent
distance on the Chilean coast. The arc of a circle indicated on sketch-map No. 3 is used to identify
the first Peruvian base point. Further base points for the construction of the provisional
- 63 -
equidistance line have been selected as the most seaward coastal points “situated nearest to the area
to be delimited” (Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2009, p. 101, para. 117). These base points are situated to the north-west of the initial base
point on the Peruvian coast and south of the initial base point on the Chilean coast. No points on
the Peruvian coast which lie to the south-east of that initial point on that coast can be matched with
points on the Chilean coast, as they are all situated less than 80 nautical miles from Point A (see
sketch-map No. 3: Construction of the provisional equidistance line).
186. The provisional equidistance line thus constructed runs in a general south-west
direction, almost in a straight line, reflecting the smooth character of the two coasts, until it reaches
the 200-nautical-mile limit measured from the Chilean baselines (Point B). Seaward of this point
the 200-nautical-mile projections of the Parties’ coasts no longer overlap.
187. Before continuing the application of the usual methodology, the Court recalls that, in its
second submission, Peru requested the Court to adjudge and declare that, beyond the point where
the common maritime boundary ends, Peru is entitled to exercise sovereign rights over a maritime
area lying out to a distance of 200 nautical miles from its baselines (see paragraphs 14 to
15 above). This claim is in relation to the area in a darker shade of blue in sketch-map No. 2 (see
paragraph 22 above).
188. Peru contends that, in the maritime area beyond 200 nautical miles from the Chilean
coast but within 200 nautical miles of its own coast, it has the rights which are accorded to a coastal
State by general international law and that Chile has no such rights.
Chile in response contends that the 1952 Santiago Declaration establishes a single lateral
limit for all maritime areas of its States parties whether actual or prospective, invoking the
reference in paragraph II of the Declaration to “a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles”.
189. Since the Court has already concluded that the agreed boundary line along the parallel
of latitude ends at 80 nautical miles from the coast, the foundation for the Chilean argument does
not exist. Moreover, since the Court has decided that it will proceed with the delimitation of the
overlapping maritime entitlements of the Parties by drawing an equidistance line, Peru’s second
submission has become moot and the Court need not rule on it.
190. After Point B (see paragraph 186 above), the 200-nautical-mile limits of the Parties’
maritime entitlements delimited on the basis of equidistance no longer overlap. The Court
observes that, from Point B, the 200-nautical-mile limit of Chile’s maritime entitlement runs in a
generally southward direction. The final segment of the maritime boundary therefore proceeds
from Point B to Point C, where the 200-nautical-mile limits of the Parties’ maritime entitlements
intersect. Arc of a circle with a radius of
80 nautical miles from Point A
Agreed maritime boundary
200 nautical miles
from Chile's coast
C
PACIFIC
B
from Peru's coast
OCEAN
200 nautical miles
A
BOLIVIA
CHILE
Ilo
PERU
Arica
Tacna
Construction of the
provisional equidistance line
WGS 84
This sketch-map has been prepared
Sketch-map No. 3:
for illustrative purposes only.
Mercator Projection (18° 20' S)
- 64 -- 65 -
191. The Court must now determine whether there are any relevant circumstances calling for
an adjustment of the provisional equidistance line, with the purpose, it must always be recalled, of
achieving an equitable result. In this case, the equidistance line avoids any excessive amputation of
either State’s maritime projections. No relevant circumstances appear in the record before the
Court. There is accordingly no basis for adjusting the provisional equidistance line.
192. The next step is to determine whether the provisional equidistance line drawn from
Point A produces a result which is significantly disproportionate in terms of the lengths of the
relevant coasts and the division of the relevant area. The purpose is to assess the equitable nature
of the result.
193. As the Court has already noted (see paragraph 183 above), the existence of an agreed
line running for 80 nautical miles along the parallel of latitude presents it with an unusual situation.
The existence of that line would make difficult, if not impossible, the calculation of the length of
the relevant coasts and of the extent of the relevant area, were the usual mathematical calculation of
the proportions to be undertaken. The Court recalls that in some instances in the past, because of
the practical difficulties arising from the particular circumstances of the case, it has not undertaken
that calculation. Having made that point in the case concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya/Malta) (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 53, para. 74), it continued in these terms:
“if the Court turns its attention to the extent of the areas of shelf lying on each side of
the line, it is possible for it to make a broad assessment of the equitableness of the
result, without seeking to define the equities in arithmetical terms” (ibid., p. 55,
para. 75).
More recently, the Court observed that, in this final phase of the delimitation process, the
calculation does not purport to be precise and is approximate; “[t]he object of delimitation is to
achieve a delimitation that is equitable, not an equal apportionment of maritime areas” (Maritime
Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 100,
para. 111; see similarly Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen
(Denmark v. Norway), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1993, pp. 66-67, para. 64, and p. 68, para. 67,
referring to difficulties, as in the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta) case, in
defining with sufficient precision which coasts and which areas were to be treated as relevant; and
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial
Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 433-448, paras. 272-307, where although
the Court referred to the relevant coastlines and the relevant area, it made no precise calculation of
them). In such cases, the Court engages in a broad assessment of disproportionality.
194. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, the Court follows the same approach here
and concludes that no significant disproportion is evident, such as would call into question the
equitable nature of the provisional equidistance line.
195. The Court accordingly concludes that the maritime boundary between the two Parties
from Point A runs along the equidistance line to Point B, and then along the 200-nautical-mile limit
measured from the Chilean baselines to Point C (see sketch-map No. 4: Course of the maritime
boundary). Ilo
Sketch-map No. 4:
Course of the maritime boundary
This sketch-map has been prepared
for illustrative purposes only.
Mercator Projection (18° 20' S)
WGS 84
CHILE