In that context, the Court takes note of the orientation of the coast in this region, and the location of the most important relevant ports of the Parties at the time. Chile continues, citing the Judgment in the case concerning. The Parties' express acknowledgment of its existence can only reflect a tacit agreement which they had reached earlier. In such cases, the Court engages in a broad assessment of disproportionality. Published online by Cambridge University Press: URL: /core/journals/international-legal-materials. Peru and Chile are situated in the western part of South America ; their mainland coasts face the Pacific Ocean. Neither Party claims an extended continental shelf in the area with which this case is concerned. 1 and indicate the definitive location of the towers or leading marks....". 20 March 2009 for the Memorial of the Republic of Peru; In view of the above, the language of the 1947 Proclamations, as well as their provisional nature, precludes an interpretation of them as reflecting a shared understanding of the Parties concerning maritime delimitation. 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. 1 and the seashore, an action which elicited an immediate protest from Peru, with this booth being subsequently removed. The original PDFs of the commercial arbitration awards are the only documents that are not available by default on jusmundi.com. Id. ¶ 4 (declaration of Tomka, J.). Having regard to Article 48 of the Statute of the Court and to Articles 31, However, in support of its claim that that line constitutes the maritime boundary, Chile also invokes agreements and arrangements which it signed later with Ecuador and Peru, and with Peru alone. See Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 26 (declaration of Tomka, J. 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. at 13 ¶ 2.3. the Republic of Chile in respect of a dispute concerning, on the one hand, Peru considers that Chile's claim that Boundary Marker No. However, neither State made any comment on the matter of delimitation. In addressing this question, the Parties considered the significance of the 1947 Proclamations, the 1952 Santiago Declaration and various agreements concluded in 1952 and 1954. However, this proposal was not adopted. 102). 27 2. Id. In this regard the Parties drew no distinction, at that time or subsequently, between these spaces. 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. 그러나 경계선의 성격에 대해서는 언급이 없고 범위 역시 12 해리를 초과하는 것은 인정이 되나 한계가 어디인지 언급이 없다는 점을 지적하였다. 3 is used to identify the first Peruvian base point. In accordance with the provisions of Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar moreover addressed to the Organization of American States (hereinafter the "OAS") the notification provided for in Article 34, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court. However the Agreements on Supervision and Control and on the Regulation of Permits give no indication about the location or nature of boundaries of the zones. In order to determine the starting-point of the maritime boundary, the Court has considered certain cartographic evidence presented by the Parties. The background of this dispute goes back to the mid-1980s. . 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. Chile contends that the 1952 Santiago Declaration established an international maritime boundary along the parallel of latitude passing through the starting-point of the Peru-Chile land boundary and extending to a minimum of 200 nautical miles. 판결), 74. The data, the report says, are incomplete for the first ten years. (Order of Apr. The law sets out 266 geographical co-ordinates used to measure Peru's baselines, culminating in so-called "Point 266", which Peru claims coincides with Point Concordia. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger) 사건 (Burkina Faso v. Niger, 2013. The 1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements therefore serve as compelling evidence that the agreed maritime boundary follows the parallel that passes through Boundary Marker No. Paragraph VI expresses the intention of the States parties to establish by agreement in the future general norms of regulation and protection to be applied in their respective maritime zones. . 재판부는 해안선, 길이비와 배분된 해역의 면적비 간의 현저한 불비례성 여부는 정확한 측정치를 기준으로, 고려하는 것이 아니라 개략적인 비교를 통해서도 적용하여 왔다고 설명한 후 이 사건의, 경우 현저한 불비례성이 존재하지 않는 것은 시각적으로 확인된다고 판시하였다. (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. Its Preamble recites the need to specify, in cartographic and geodesic work, the manner of determining the Peruvian maritime zone of 200 nautical miles referred to in the 1947 Decree and the 1952 Santiago Declaration. The 1947 Proclamations of Chile and Peru, A. Chile emphasizes that Article 1, the primary substantive provision, is in the present tense : the ten-nautical-mile zones are being created to the north and south of a maritime boundary which already exists. 1. 8 Proclamation No. But, as Chile says, the Decree was concerned only with the harvesting of living resources on and under the sea-bed within its "territorial seas". 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. Peru further claims that the purpose of paragraph IV is to provide a protective zone for insular maritime entitlements so that even if an eventual maritime delimitation occurred in a manner otherwise detrimental to such insular entitlements, it could only do so as far as the line of parallel referred to therein. The Court notes that the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement is still in force. On January 27, 2014, in the final ruling of the Court, Peru gained some maritime territory. From this point, the maritime boundary runs along the equidistance line to Point B, and then along the The 1953 Decree relates to the territorial sea out to 12 nautical miles. These lines were constructed by drawing them along the parallels of latitude which continue the parallel of geographical latitude from the final point of land frontier.”); Rejoinder of Sir Humphrey Waldock, Counsel for the Governments of Denmark and the Netherlands, North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G./Neth. 2 : The maritime boundary lines claimed by Peru and Chile respectively, p. The Court has concluded, contrary to Chile's submissions, that Chile and Peru did not, by adopting the 1952 Santiago Declaration, agree to the establishment of a lateral maritime boundary between them along the line of latitude running into the Pacific Ocean from the seaward terminus of their land boundary. Peru v Chile (also called the Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute) is a public international law case concerning a territorial dispute between the South American republics of Peru and Chile over the sovereignty of an area at sea in the Pacific Ocean approximately 37,900 square kilometres (14,600 sq mi) in size.