Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T01:15:39.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maritime Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abhimanyu George Jain
Abhimanyu George Jain*
Affiliation:
London, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On January 27, 2014, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered its judgment in a dispute between Peru and Chile concerning the maritime boundary between them. The Court held that a partial maritime boundary already existed between the parties, and it proceeded to analyze both its nature and its extent on the basis of agreements between the parties, their practice, and other evidence. For the remainder of the boundary extending up to 200 nautical miles, the Court applied the rule of equitable delimitation found in Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Keywords

International Court of Justicemaritime territorial disputeboundary delimitationtacit agreementequidistance lineequitable apportionment
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 379 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) (Int’l Ct. Justice Jan. 27, 2014), 53 ILM 430 (2014) [hereinafter Judgment]. Decisions and documents of the Court cited herein are available at its website, http://www.icj-cij.org. The declarations and separate opinions attached to the present judgment are not included in International Legal Materials.

2 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 3,available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/.

3 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogotá), Apr. 30, 1948, OASTS Nos. 17 & 61, 30 UNTS 55.

4 Don Anton,The Maritime Dispute Between Peru and Chile, E-International Relations (Mar. 18, 2014), at http://www.e-ir.info/2014/03/18/the-maritime-dispute-between-peru-and-chile/.

5 Chile, Peru and the ICJ: A Line in the Sea, Economist, Feb. 1, 2014, at 3, available at http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21595481-heres-grown-up-way-settle-long-standing-border-dispute-line-sea [hereinafter Chile, Peru and the ICJ].

6 Declaration on the Maritime Zone, Chile-Ecuador-Peru, para. IV, Aug. 18, 1952, 1006 UNTS 323, quoted in Judgment, para. 49.

7 1 Rejoinder of Chile, Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)(July 11, 2011); David P.Riesenberg, Introductory Note to Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) (I.C.J.), 53 ILM 425, 426 & nn.16–18 (2014).

8 This view is addressed at length in 1 Rejoinder of Chile, supra note 7, at 15–17.

9 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 31, 32,opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, 8 ILM 679 (1969).

10 Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone, Chile-Ecuador-Peru, Art. 1, Dec. 4, 1954, 2274 UNTS 527, quoted in Judgment, para. 81.

11 Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.), 2007 ICJ Rep. 659, 735, para. 253 (Oct. 8) [hereinafter Nicaragua v. Honduras].

12 Lighthouse Arrangements, Chile-Peru, Apr. 26, 1968, quoted in Judgment, para. 96.

13 Judgment, para. 179 (citing Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), 2012 ICJ Rep. 624, 674, para. 139 (Nov. 19) [hereinafter Nicaragua v. Colombia ]; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahr.), 2001 ICJ Rep. 40, 91, para. 167 (Mar. 16)).

14 Judgment, para. 180 (citing Nicaragua v. Colombia, supra note 13, at 695–96, paras. 190–93; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Rom. v. Ukr.), 2009 ICJ Rep. 61, 101–03, paras. 115–22 (Feb. 3) [hereinafter Romania v. Ukraine ]).

15 Id., para. 183 (citing Romania v. Ukraine, supra note 14, at 130, para. 218; Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Eq. Guinea intervening), 2002 ICJ Rep. 303, 431–32, paras. 268–69 (Oct. 10); Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can./U.S.), 1984 ICJ Rep. 246, 332–33, para. 212 (Oct. 12)).

16 Chile, Peru and the ICJ, supra note 5.

17 Quoting Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 11, at 735, para. 253; see also text at note 11 supra.

18 Nicaragua v. Honduras, supra note 11, at 729–33, paras. 237–46.

19 Id. at 735–37, paras. 254–57.

20 On this point, see, for instance, Judgment, Declaration of Judge Sepúlveda-Amor, paras. 4–8; id., Separate Opinion of Judge Owada, paras. 7–20 [hereinafter sep. op. Owada, J.];id., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sebutinde, paras. 6–7 [hereinafter diss. op. Sebutinde, J.].

21 Judgment, Declaration of President Tomka, paras.2–4[hereinafter decl. Tomka, J.]; sep. op. Owada, J., paras. 24–25.

22 Judgment, Declaration of Judge Skotnikov, para. 6.

23 E.g., decl. Tomka, J., para. 24; diss. op. Sebutinde, J., para. 2.

24 Diss. op. Sebutinde, J., paras. 13–14.

25 Judgment, Declaration of Judge Donoghue passim.