Chronology of the Procedure
In its Application, Peru seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement signed on 30 April 1948, officially designated, according to Article LX thereof, as the "Pact of Bogota" (hereinafter referred to as such).
For Peru : H.E. Mr. Allan Wagner,
Mr. Alain Pellet,
Mr. Rodman Bundy,
Mr. Tullio Treves,
Sir Michael Wood,
Mr. Vaughan Lowe.
For Chile : H.E. Mr. Albert van Klaveren Stork,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,
Mr. David Colson,
Mr. James Crawford,
Mr. Jan Paulsson,
Mr. Georgios Petrochilos,
Mr. Luigi Condorelli,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth.
"Peru requests the Court to determine the course of the boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in accordance with international law... and to adjudge and declare that Peru possesses exclusive sovereign rights in the maritime area situated within the limit of 200 nautical miles from its coast but outside Chile's exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
The Government of Peru, further, reserves its right to supplement, amend or modify the present Application in the course of the proceedings."
On behalf of the Government of Peru,
in the Memorial and in the Reply :
"For the reasons set out [in Peru's Memorial and Reply], the Republic of Peru requests the Court to adjudge and declare that :
(1) The delimitation between the respective maritime zones between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile, is a line starting at 'Point Concordia' (defined as the intersection with the low-water mark of a 10-kilometre radius arc, having as its centre the first bridge over the River Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway) and equidistant from the baselines of both Parties, up to a point situated at a distance of 200 nautical miles from those baselines, and
(2) Beyond the point where the common maritime border ends, Peru is entitled to exercise exclusive sovereign rights over a maritime area lying out to a distance of 200 nautical miles from its baselines.
The Republic of Peru reserves its right to amend these submissions as the case may be in the course of the present proceedings."
On behalf of the Government of Chile,
in the Counter-Memorial and in the Rejoinder :
"Chile respectfully requests the Court to :
(a) dismiss Peru's claims in their entirety ;
(b) adjudge and declare that :
(i) the respective maritime zone entitlements of Chile and Peru have been fully delimited by agreement ;
(ii) those maritime zone entitlements are delimited by a boundary following the parallel of latitude passing through the most seaward boundary marker of the land boundary between Chile and Peru, known as Hito No. 1, having a latitude of 18° 21'00" S under WGS 84 Datum ; and
(iii) Peru has no entitlement to any maritime zone extending to the south of that parallel."
II. Historical Background
Representatives of the three States also signed in 1955 and later ratified the Agreement for the Regulation of Permits for the Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific. That treaty was not, however, submitted to the United Nations for registration along with the other twelve instruments in 1973 or at any other time.
Peru also argues that, beyond the point where the common maritime boundary ends, it is entitled to exercise exclusive sovereign rights over a maritime area lying out to a distance of 200 nautical miles from its baselines. (This maritime area is depicted on sketch-map No. 2 in a darker shade of blue.) Chile responds that Peru has no entitlement to any maritime zone extending to the south of the parallel of latitude along which, as Chile maintains, the international maritime boundary runs.
IV. Whether There Is an Agreed Maritime Boundary
Peru contends that although its 1947 Decree refers to the Peruvian zone of control and protection as "the area covered between the coast and an imaginary parallel line to it at a distance of two hundred (200) nautical miles measured following the line of the geographical parallels", such reference simply described the manner in which the seaward limits of the maritime zone would be drawn, with there being no intention to set any lateral boundaries with neighbouring States. Peru further considers that, according to terminology at the relevant time, the language of "sovereignty" in its 1947 Decree referred simply to rights over resources.
1. That the Governments of the United States of America, of Mexico and of the Argentine Republic, by presidential declarations made on 28 September 1945, 29 October 1945, and 11 October 1946, respectively,
2. That they have explicitly proclaimed the rights of their States to protect, preserve, control and inspect fishing enterprises, with the object of preventing illicit activities threatening to damage or destroy the considerable natural riches of this kind contained in the seas adjacent to their coasts, and which are indispensable to the welfare and progress of their respective peoples ; and that the justice of such claims is indisputable ;
3. That it is manifestly convenient, in the case of the Chilean Republic, to issue a similar proclamation of sovereignty, not only by the fact of possessing and having already under exploitation natural riches essential to the life of the nation and contained in the continental shelf, such as the coal-mines, which are exploited both on the mainland and under the sea, but further because, in view of its topography and the narrowness of its boundaries, the life of the country is linked to the sea and to all present and future natural riches contained within it, more so than in the case of any other country ;
(1) The Government of Chile confirms and proclaims its national sovereignty over all the continental shelf adjacent to the continental and island coasts of its national territory, whatever may be their depth below the sea, and claims by consequence all the natural riches which exist on the said shelf, both in and under it, known or to be discovered.
(2) The Government of Chile confirms and proclaims its national sovereignty over the seas adjacent to its coasts whatever may be their depths, and within those limits necessary in order to reserve, protect, preserve and exploit the natural resources of whatever nature found on, within and below the said seas, placing within the control of the Government especially all fisheries and whaling activities with the object of preventing the exploitation of natural riches of this kind to the detriment of the inhabitants of Chile and to prevent the spoiling or destruction of the said riches to the detriment of the country and the American continent.
(3) The demarcation of the protection zones for whaling and deep sea fishery in the continental and island seas under the control of the Government of Chile will be made in accordance with this declaration of sovereignty at any moment which the Government may consider convenient, such demarcation to be ratified, amplified, or modified in any way to conform with the knowledge, discoveries, studies and interests of Chile as required in the future. Protection and control is hereby declared immediately over all the seas contained within the perimeter formed by the coast and the mathematical parallel projected into the sea at a distance of 200 nautical miles from the coasts of Chilean territory. This demarcation will be calculated to include the Chilean islands, indicating a maritime zone contiguous to the coasts of the said islands, projected parallel to these islands at a distance of 200 nautical miles around their coasts.
(4) The present declaration of sovereignty does not disregard the similar legitimate rights of other States on a basis of reciprocity, nor does it affect the rights of free navigation on the high seas."
"The President of the Republic,
That the shelf contains certain natural resources which must be proclaimed as our national heritage ;
That it is deemed equally necessary that the State protect, maintain and establish a control of fisheries and other natural resources found in the continental waters which cover the submerged shelf and the adjacent continental seas in order that these resources which are so essential to our national life may continue to be exploited now and in the future in such a way as to cause no detriment to the country's economy or to its food production ;
That the right to proclaim sovereignty and national jurisdiction over the entire extension of the submerged shelf as well as over the continental waters which cover it and the adjacent seas in the area required for the maintenance and vigilance of the resources therein contained, has been claimed by other countries and practically admitted in international law (Declaration of the President of the United States of 28 September 1945 ; Declaration of the President of Mexico of 29 October 1945 ; Decree of the President of the Argentine Nation of 11 October 1946 ; Declaration of the President of Chile of 23 June 1947) ;
With the advisory vote of the Cabinet,
1. To declare that national sovereignty and jurisdiction are extended to the submerged continental or insular shelf adjacent to the continental or insular shores of national territory, whatever the depth and extension of this shelf may be.
2. National sovereignty and jurisdiction are exercised as well over the sea adjoining the shores of national territory whatever its depth and in the extension necessary to reserve, protect, maintain and utilize natural resources and wealth of any kind which may be found in or below those waters.
3. As a result of previous declarations the State reserves the right to establish the limits of the zones of control and protection of natural resources in continental or insular seas which are controlled by the Peruvian Government and to modify such limits in accordance with supervening circumstances which may originate as a result of further discoveries, studies or national interests which may become apparent in the future and at the same time declares that it will exercise the same control and protection on the seas adjacent to the Peruvian coast over the area covered between the coast and an imaginary parallel line to it at a distance of two hundred (200) nautical miles measured following the line of the geographical parallels. As regards islands pertaining to the nation, this demarcation will be traced to include the sea area adjacent to the shores of these islands to a distance of two hundred (200) nautical miles, measured from all points on the contour of these islands.
4. The present declaration does not affect the right to free navigation of ships of all nations according to international law."
"1. Governments have the obligation to ensure for their peoples the necessary conditions of subsistence, and to provide them with the resources for their economic development.
2. Consequently, they are responsible for the conservation and protection of their natural resources and for the regulation of the development of these resources in order to secure the best possible advantages for their respective countries.
3. Thus, it is also their duty to prevent any exploitation of these resources, beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, which endangers the existence, integrity and conservation of these resources to the detriment of the peoples who, because of their geographical situation, possess irreplaceable means of subsistence and vital economic resources in their seas.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru, determined to conserve and safeguard for their respective peoples the natural resources of the maritime zones adjacent to their coasts, formulate the following Declaration :
I. The geological and biological factors which determine the existence, conservation and development of marine fauna and flora in the waters along the coasts of the countries making the Declaration are such that the former extension of the territorial sea and the contiguous zone are inadequate for the purposes of the conservation, development and exploitation of these resources, to which the coastal countries are entitled.
II. In the light of these circumstances, the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru proclaim as a norm of their international maritime policy that they each possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea along the coasts of their respective countries to a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles from these coasts.
III. The exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over this maritime zone shall also encompass exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea-bed and the subsoil thereof.
IV. In the case of island territories, the zone of 200 nautical miles shall apply to the entire coast of the island or group of islands. If an island or group of islands belonging to one of the countries making the declaration is situated less than 200 nautical miles from the general maritime zone belonging to another of those countries, the maritime zone of the island or group of islands shall be limited by the parallel at the point at which the land frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea.
V. This declaration shall be without prejudice to the necessary limitations to the exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction established under international law to allow innocent and inoffensive passage through the area indicated for ships of all nations.
VI. For the application of the principles contained in this Declaration, the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru hereby announce their intention to sign agreements or conventions which shall establish general norms to regulate and protect hunting and fishing within the maritime zone belonging to them, and to regulate and co-ordinate the exploitation and development of all other kinds of products or natural resources existing in these waters which are of common interest."
"The zone indicated comprises all waters within the perimeter formed by the coasts of each country and a mathematical parallel projected into the sea to 200 nautical miles away from the mainland, along the coastal fringe.
In the case of island territories, the zone of 200 nautical miles will apply all around the island or island group.
If an island or group of islands belonging to one of the countries making the declaration is situated less than 200 nautical miles from the general maritime zone belonging to another of those countries, according to what has been established in the first paragraph of this article, the maritime zone of the said island or group of islands shall be limited, in the corresponding part, to the distance that separates it from the maritime zone of the other State or country."
The Court notes that this original Chilean proposal appears intended to effect a general delimitation of the maritime zones along lateral lines. However, this proposal was not adopted.
"observed that it would be advisable to provide more clarity to Article 3 [which became paragraph IV of the final text of the 1952 Santiago Declaration], in order to avoid any error in the interpretation of the interference zone in the case of islands, and suggested that the declaration be drafted on the basis that the boundary line of the jurisdictional zone of each country be the respective parallel from the point at which the frontier of the countries touches or reaches the sea".
According to the minutes, this proposition met with the agreement of all of the delegates.
Ecuador's intervention, with which the Parties agreed, is limited in its concern to clarification "in the case of islands". Thus the Court is of the view that it can be understood as saying no more than that which is already stated in the final text of paragraph IV. The Court considers from the foregoing that the travaux preparatories confirm its conclusion that the 1952 Santiago Declaration did not effect a general maritime delimitation.
"The right to proclaim our sovereignty over the sea zone that extends to two hundred miles from the coast is thus undeniable and inalienable. We gather now to reaffirm our decision to defend, whatever the cost, this sovereignty and to exercise it in accordance with the high national interests of the signatory countries to the Declaration.
We strongly believe that, little by little, the legal statement that has been formulated by our countries into the 1952 Agreement [the Santiago Declaration] will find its place in international law until it is accepted by all Governments that wish to preserve, for mankind, resources that today are ruthlessly destroyed by the unregulated exercise of exploitative activities that pursue diminished individual interests and not collective needs."
It shall be the function of each signatory country to supervise and control the exploitation of the resources in its Maritime Zone by the use of such organs and means as it considers necessary.
The supervision and control referred to in Article one shall be exercised by each country exclusively in the waters of its jurisdiction." (Emphasis added by Chile.)
Chile contends that the second article proceeds on the basis that each State's maritime zone had been delimited. Peru made no reference to the substance of this Agreement. Chile also referred in this context to the 1955 Agreement for the Regulation of Permits for Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific (see paragraph 21 above) and to its 1959 Decree providing for that regulation.
"Experience has shown that innocent and inadvertent violations of the maritime frontier [la frontera maritima] between adjacent States occur frequently because small vessels manned by crews with insufficient knowledge of navigation or not equipped with the necessary instruments have difficulty in determining accurately their position on the high seas ;
The application of penalties in such cases always produces ill-feeling in the fishermen and friction between the countries concerned, which may affect adversely the spirit of co-operation and unity which should at all times prevail among the countries signatories to the instruments signed at Santiago ; and
It is desirable to avoid the occurrence of such unintentional infringements, the consequences of which affect principally the fishermen."
"1. A special zone is hereby established, at a distance of [a partir de] 12 nautical miles from the coast, extending to a breadth of 10 nautical miles on either side of the parallel which constitutes the maritime boundary [el timite maritimo] between the two countries.
2. The accidental presence in the said zone of a vessel of either of the adjacent countries, which is a vessel of the nature described in the paragraph beginning with the words 'Experience has shown' in the Preamble hereto, shall not be considered to be a violation of the waters of the maritime zone, though this provision shall not be construed as recognizing any right to engage, with deliberate intent, in hunting or fishing in the said special zone.
3. Fishing or hunting within the zone of 12 nautical miles from the coast shall be reserved exclusively to the nationals of each country."
Article 4 is the standard provision, included in all six of the 1954 Agreements, deeming it to be "an integral and supplementary part" of the 1952 instruments which it was not in any way to abrogate (see paragraph 73 above).
That document concluded as follows :
"Finally, given that the parallel which it is intended to materialise is that which corresponds to the geographical location indicated in the Act signed in Lima on 1 August 1930 for Boundary Marker No. 1, the Representatives suggest that the positions of this pyramid be verified by a Joint Commission before the execution of the recommended works."
Peru recalls that it was the "enormous whaling and fishing potential" of the areas situated off their coasts which led the three States to proclaim 200-nautical-mile zones in 1952. Industrial fishing is carried out nOwadays at significant levels in southern areas of Peru, notably from the ports of Ilo and Matarani : the former is "one of Peru's main fishing ports and the most important fishing centre in southern Peru".
"Species such as tunny and barrilete were mostly caught 20 to 80 miles from the coast ; the same anchovetas of the coastal waters sometimes went 60 or more miles away ; and the cachalot and whales were usually to be found more than 100 miles off."
He then continued :
"The requests formulated by Peru met the conditions necessary for their recognition as legally binding and applicable since first, they were the expression of principles recognized by law ; secondly, they had a scientific basis; and thirdly, they responded to national vital necessities."
Second, in the years leading up to 1954, the Parties' respective catches in the Pacific Ocean included large amounts of bonito/barrilete and tuna. While it is true that through the 1950s the take of anchovy, especially by Peru, increased very rapidly, the catch of the other species continued at a high and increasing level. In 1954 the Peruvian catch of tuna and bonito was 65,900 tonnes and of anchovy 43,100 tonnes while Chile caught 5,200 and 1,300 tonnes of those species, respectively.
The Parties also referred to the hunting of whales by their fleets and by foreign fleets as one of the factors leading to the adoption of the 1947 and 1952 instruments. The FAO statistics provide some information about the extent of whale catches by the Parties ; there is no indication of where those catches occurred.
The purpose of the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement was to establish a zone of tolerance along the parallel for small fishing boats, which were not sufficiently equipped (see paragraphs 88 to 90 and 103). Boats departing from Arica to catch the above-mentioned species, in a west-north-west direction, in the range of 60 nautical miles from the coast, which runs essentially from north to south at this point, would not cross the parallel beyond a point approximately 57 nautical miles from the starting-point of the maritime boundary. The orientation of the coast turns sharply to the north-west in this region (see sketch-maps Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 14 and 17), such that, on the Peruvian side, fishing boats departing seaward from Ilo, in a south-west direction, to the range of those same species would cross the parallel of latitude at a point up to approximately 100 nautical miles from the starting-point of the maritime boundary.
"In accordance with clause IV [el inciso IV] of the Declaration of Santiago, the said line may not extend beyond that of the corresponding parallel at the point where the frontier of Peru [la frontera del Peru] reaches the sea."
Peru contends that Article 1 employs an arc of circles method, as, it says, was also the case with its 1952 Petroleum Law. Chile rejects that interpretation of both instruments and submits that both use the tracé parallèle method, supporting the use of the parallel of latitude for the maritime boundary. Chile also places considerable weight on the reference in the resolution to paragraph IV of the 1952 Santiago Declaration.
"[T]he adhesion to the principle stating that the coastal States have the right and duty to protect, conserve and use the resources of the sea along their coasts, shall not be constrained by the assertion of the right of every State to determine the extension and boundaries of its Maritime Zone. Therefore, at the moment of accession, every State shall be able to determine the extension and form of delimitation of its respective zone whether opposite to one part or to the entirety of its coastline, according to the peculiar geographic conditions, the extension of each sea and the geological and biological factors that condition the existence, conservation and development of the maritime fauna and flora in its waters."
The only other provision of the 1952 Santiago Declaration which was the subject of an express exclusion from the 1955 Protocol was paragraph VI which concerns the possibility of future agreements in application of these principles. This provision was excluded on the basis that it was "determined by the geographic and biological similarity of the coastal maritime
zones of the signatory countries" to the Declaration. It is common ground that no State in fact ever took advantage of the 1955 Protocol.
"the universal recognition of the rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal State within the 200-mile limit provided for in the draft Convention is a fundamental achievement of the countries members of the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific, in accordance with its basic objectives stated in the Santiago Declaration of 1952".
The Court notes that this statement did not mention delimitation, nor refer to any existing maritime boundaries between those States.
"Where a specific agreement on the delimitation of the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts did not exist or where there were no special circumstances or historic rights recognized by the Parties, the median line should as a general rule be used... since it was the most likely method of achieving an equitable solution."
Peru contends that its "active participation" in the negotiations on this matter illustrates that it had yet to resolve its own delimitation issues. Given the conclusions reached above, however, the Court need not consider that matter. The statements by Peruvian representatives at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea relate to prospective maritime boundary agreements between States (and provisional arrangements to be made pending such agreements) ; they do not shed light on the extent of the existing maritime boundary between Peru and Chile.
"must be complemented by the timely and direct solution of problems which are the result of new circumstances, with a view to enhancing the climate of reciprocal confidence which underlies every constructive policy.
One of the cases that merits immediate attention is the formal and definitive delimitation of the marine spaces, which complement the geographical vicinity of Peru and Chile and have served as scenario of a long and fruitful joint action."
At that time, the Memorandum continued, the special zone established by the 1954 Agreement
"is not adequate to satisfy the requirements of safety nor for the better attention to the administration of marine resources, with the aggravating circumstance that an extensive interpretation could generate a notorious situation of inequity and risk, to the detriment of the legitimate interests of Peru, that would come forth as seriously damaged".
It referred to the various zones recognized in UNCLOS and said this :
"The current '200-mile maritime zone' — as defined at the Meeting of the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific in 1954 — is, without doubt, a space which is different from any of the abovementioned ones in respect of which domestic legislation is practically non-existent as regards international delimitation. The one exception might be, in the case of Peru, the Petroleum Law (No. 11780 of 12 March 1952), which established as an external limit for the exercise of the competences of the State over the continental shelf 'an imaginary line drawn seaward at a constant distance of 200 miles'. This law is in force and it should be noted that it was issued five months prior to the Declaration of Santiago.
There is no need to underline the convenience of preventing the difficulties which would arise in the absence of an express and appropriate maritime demarcation, or as the result of some deficiency therein which could affect the amicable conduct of relations between Chile and Peru."
"Ambassador Bakula expressed the interest of the Peruvian Government to start future conversations between the two countries on their points of view regarding maritime delimitation.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, taking into consideration the good relations existing between both countries, took note of the above stating that studies on this matter shall be carried out in due time."
The seizure of the Onassis whaling fleet, undertaken by Peru in defence of the claims made by the three signatories to the 1952 Santiago Declaration (see paragraph 75 above), was indicative of these concerns. This action occurred 126 nautical miles off of the Peruvian coast. Prior to its seizure, the fleet unsuccessfully sought permission from Peru that it be allowed to hunt between 15 and 100 nautical miles from the Peruvian coast.
"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.
"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."
"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.)
"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."
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 Geografico 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.
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".
"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.
(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, Cancado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Donoghue, Sebutinde, Bhandari ; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Orrego Vicuna ;
against : Judge Gaja ;
(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, Cancado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja, Bhandari ; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Orrego Vicuna ;
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, Cancado Trindade, Yusuf, Donoghue ; Judge ad hoc Guillaume ;
against : President Tomka ; Judges Xue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari ; Judge ad hoc Orrego Vicuna ;
(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, Cancado Trindade, Yusuf, Donoghue ; Judge ad hoc Guillaume ;
against : President Tomka ; Judges Xue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari ; Judge ad hoc Orrego Vicuna ;
(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, Cancado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari ; Judge ad hoc Guillaume ;
against : Judge ad hoc Orrego Vicuna.
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.
Already registered ?