Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 16 January 2008, Peru filed an Application instituting proceedings against Chile concerning a dispute in relation to “the delimitation of the boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in the Pacific Ocean, beginning at a point on the coast called Concordia . . . the terminal point of the land boundary established pursuant to the Treaty . . . of 3 June 1929”, and also to the recognition in favour of Peru of a “maritime zone lying within 200 nautical miles of Peru’s coast, and thus appertaining to Peru, but which Chile considers to be part of the high seas”.

In its Judgment of 27 January 2014, the Court examined whether, as claimed by Chile, there was an agreed maritime boundary extending 200 nautical miles from the Parties’ respective coasts. After analysing the proclamations and declarations of Peru and Chile (1947 Proclamations and 1952 Santiago Declaration), as well as later agreements and arrangements adopted by Peru, Chile and Ecuador, the Court concluded that the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement acknowledged that a maritime boundary already existed, although that text did not state when and by what means that boundary had been agreed upon. The Court therefore considered that the Parties’ express acknowledgment of the existence of a maritime boundary could only reflect a tacit agreement they had reached earlier, and which was “cemented” by the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement. Based on an assessment of all of the relevant evidence presented to it with regard to the agreed maritime boundary between the Parties, the Court concluded that the said boundary was an all-purpose maritime boundary and extended to a distance of 80 nautical miles along the parallel from its starting-point.

Having concluded that an agreed single maritime boundary existed between the Parties, and that this boundary started at the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low-water line, and continued for 80 nautical miles along that parallel, the Court applied the three-stage methodology it usually employs to determine the course of the maritime boundary from that point on. First, the Court constructs a provisional equidistance line unless there are compelling reasons preventing it from doing so. Second, it considers whether there are any relevant circumstances which may call for an adjustment of that line to achieve an equitable result. Third, 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.

The Court concluded that the maritime boundary between the Parties would start at the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low-water line, and extend for 80 nautical miles along that parallel of latitude to Point A. From that point, it would run along the equidistance line until it reached the 200-nautical-mile limit measured from the Chilean baselines (Point B). After that point, since the 200-nautical-mile projections of the Parties’ coasts no longer overlapped, the maritime boundary would run along the 200-nautical-mile limit measured from the Chilean baselines to Point C, where the 200-nautical-mile limits of the Parties’ maritime entitlements intersected. In view of the circumstances of the case, the Court defined the course of the maritime boundary between the Parties without determining the precise geographical co-ordinates. It recalled that it had not been asked to do so in the Parties’ final submissions. The Court therefore expected that the Parties would determine these co-ordinates in accordance with the Judgment, in the spirit of good neighbourliness. On 25 March 2014, Peru and Chile approved the co-ordinates of their maritime boundary.


This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

16 January 2008
Available in:

Written proceedings


Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2012/27 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Monday 3 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/28 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 4 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/29 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 4 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/30 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Thursday 6 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/31 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 7 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/32 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 7 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/33 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/34 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/35 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 14 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation
Verbatim record 2012/36 (bilingual version)
Public sitting held on Friday 14 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits
Available in:

Judgments


Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary of the Judgment of 27 January 2014
Available in:

Press releases

16 January 2008
Peru institutes proceedings against Chile with regard to a dispute concerning maritime delimitation between the two States
Available in:
1 April 2008
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
28 April 2010
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court authorizes the submission of a Reply by Peru and a Rejoinder by Chile, and fixes time-limits for the filing of these pleadings
Available in:
22 March 2012
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 3 to Friday 14 December 2012
Available in:
23 November 2012
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Note to members of the Diplomatic Corps, the press and the public - Closure of the accreditation and admission procedures
Available in:
14 December 2012
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Conclusion of the public hearings - Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
13 December 2013
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Monday 27 January 2014 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
27 January 2014
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court determines the course of the single maritime boundary between Peru and Chile
Available in: