Corrigé
Corrected
CR2012/30
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LAHAYE
YEAR2012
Public sitting
held on Thursday 6December 2012, at 3p.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute
(Pern v. Chile)
VERBATIM RECORD
ANNÉE2012
Audience publique
tenue lejeudi 6 décembre2012, à 15/zeures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous laprésidencee M. Tomka, président,
en l'affaire du Différendmaritime
(Pérouc. Chili)
COMPTE RENDU -2-
Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepùlveda-Amor
Judges Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Onega Vicufia
Registrar Couvreur - 3-
Présents : M. Tomka, président
M. Sepulveda-Amor, vice-président
MM. Owada
Abraham
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
MmesXue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
M. Bhandari, juges
MM. Guillaume
Orrego Vicufia, juges ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier -4-
The Government of the Republic of Peru is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Allan Wagner, Ambassador, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Minister of
Defence, former Secretary-General of the Andean Community, Ambassador of Peru to the
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Rafael Roncagliolo, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
as Special Envoy;
H.E. Mr. JoséAntonio Garda Belaunde, Ambassador, former Minister for Foreign Affairs,
H.E. Mr. Jorgevez Soto, Ambassador, member of the Peruvian Delegation to the Third
UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, former Adviser of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on
Lawof the Sea Matters,
as Co-Agents;
Mr. Rodman Bundy, avocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris, member of the New York Bar, Eversheds
LLP, Paris,
Mr. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., membernglish Bar, Emeritus Professor of International Law,
Oxford University, associate member of the Institut de Droit International,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at theris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, former Member
and former ChairmanInternational Law Commission, associate member of the Institut de
Droit International,
Mr. Tullio Treves, Professorat the Facultyiversity of Milan, former judge of the
International Tribunal for the Law
Sir Michael Wood, K.C.M.G., member of the English Bar, Member of the International Law
Commission,
as Counsel and Advocates;
1
.......·..·.~~.~~~E~r!!~~~l?!l.~.l~;ll~!~.~~-~~f~~!~.M~it~~~!~!~(;;l._iogtl!l:l;lE
·········
··f·i····
ber ofthePeruvianDelThird UNConferenceon the Law oftheSea;··
Mr. Vicente Ugarte del Pino, former President of the Supreme Court of Justice, former President of
the Court of Justice of the Andean Community, former Dean of the Lima Bar Association,
Mr. Roberto Mac Lean, former judgereme Court of Justice, former member of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration,
H.E. Mr. Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, Ambassador, former Minister for,-,reign Affairs,
AmbassadorPeru to Unesco,
as State Advocates; - 5-
Le Gouvernement de la République du Pérouest représentépar :
S. Exc. M. Allan Wagner, ambassadeur, ancien ministre des relations extérieures, ancien ministre
de la défense, ancien secrétaire généralde la Communauté andine, ambassadeur du Pérou
auprèsdu Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Rafael Roncagliolo, ministre des relations extérieures,
comme envoyéspécial;
S. Exc. M. JoséAntonio Garcia Belaunde, ambassadeur, ancien ministre des relations extérieures,
S. Exc. M. Jorge Chavez Soto, ambassadeur, membre de la délégation péruvienne à la
troisième conférencedes Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, ancien conseiller du ministre des
relations extérieuressur les questions relatives au droit de la mer,
comme coagents ;
M. Rodman Bundy, avocat à la Cour d'appel de Paris, membre du barreau de New York, cabinet
Eversheds LLP, Paris,
M. Vaughan Lowe, Q.C., membre du barreau d'Angleterre, professeur émérite de droit
internationalà l'Universitéd'Oxford, membre associéde l'Institut de droit international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l'Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre associéde l'Institut de droit
international,
M. Tullio Treves, professeur à la facultéde droit de l'Universitéde Milan, ancien juge du Tribunal
international du droite la mer,
sir Michael Wood, K.C.M.G, membre du barreau d'Angleterre, membre de la Commission du droit
international,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. Eduardo Ferrero, membre de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage, ancien ministre des relations
extérieures, membre de la délégationpéruvienne à la troisième conférence des Nations Unies
surle droit de la mer,
M. Juan Vicente Ugarte del Pino, ancien présidentde la Cour suprêmede justice, ancien président
de la Cour de justice dela Communautéandine, ancien bâtonnier, barreau de Lima,
M. Roberto Mac Lean, ancien juge de la Cour suprêmede justice, ancien membre de la Cour
permanente d'arbitrage,
S. Exc. M. Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, ambassadeur, ancien ministre des relations extérieures,
ambassadeur du Pérouauprèsde l'Unesco,
comme avocats de l'Etat; - 6-
Minister-Counsellor Marisol Agüero Colunga, LL.M., former Adviser of the Minister for Foreign
Affairs on Law of the Sea Matters, Co-ordinator of the Peruvian Delegation,
H.E. Mr. Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, MIPP, Ambassador, Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on
Law of the Sea Matters,
Mr. Juan JoséRuda, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Legal Adviser of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel;
Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Mr. Eran Sthoeger, LL.M., New York University School of Law,
as Assistant Counsel;
Mr. Carlos Enrique Gamarra, Vice Admirai (retired), Hydrographer, Adviser to the Office for Law
of the Sea of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Special Adviser;
Mr. Ramon Bahamonde, M.A., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
t-t Mr. Alejandro DeustuHa, M.A., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs,
Mr. Pablo Moscoso de la Cuba, LL.M., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,
as Legal Advisers;
Mr. Scott Edmonds, Cartographer, International Mapping,
Mr. Jaime Valdez, Lieutenant Commander (retired), National Cartographer of the Peruvian
Delegation,
Mr. Thomas Frogh, Cartographer, International Mapping,
as Technical Advisers;
Mr. Paul Duclos, Minister-Counsellor, LL.M., M.A., Advisory Office for the Law of the Sea of the
Ministry ofForeign Affairs, --~- ----- --- ----
Mr. Alfredo Fortes, Counsellor, LL.M., Embassy ofPeru in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. JoséAntonio Torrico, Counsellor, M.A., Embassy ofPeru in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. CésarTalavera, First Secretary, M.Sc., Embassy ofPeru in the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands,
as Advisers; - 7 -
Mme Marisol Agüero Colunga, LL.M., ministre-conseiller et ancien conseiller du ministre des
relations extérieures sur les questions relatives au droit de la mer, coordonnateur de la
délégation péruvienne,
S. Exc. M. Gustavo Meza-Cuadra, MIPP, ambassadeur, conseiller du ministère des relations
extérieuressur les questions relatives au droit de la mer,
M. Juan JoséRuda, membre de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage, conseiller juridique du ministère
des relations extérieures,
comme conseils ;
M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur au Centre de droit intemational de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
M. Eran Sthoeger, LL.M., facultéde droit de l'Universitéde New York,
comme conseils adjoints ;
Le vice-amiral (en retraite) Carlos Enrique Gamarra, hydrographe, conseiller auprès du bureau du
droit de la mer du ministère des relations extérieures,
comme conseiller spécial;
M. Ramon Bahamonde, M.A., bureau du droit de la mer du ministère des relations extérieures,
M. Alejandro Deustua, M.A., bureau du droit de la mer du ministère des relations extérieures,
M. Pablo Moscoso de la Cuba, LL.M., bureau du droit de la mer du ministère des relations
extérieures,
comme conseillers juridiques ;
M. Scott Edmonds, cartographe, International Mapping,
Le capitaine de corvette (en retraite) Jaime Valdez, cartographede la délégationpéruvienne,
Le capitaine de vaisseau (en retraite) Aquiles Carcovich, cartographe,
M. Thomas Frogh, cartographe, Intemational Mapping,
comme conseillers techniques ;
M. Paul Duclos, ministre-conseiller, LL.M., M.A., bureau du droit de la mer du ministère des
relations extérieures,
M. Alfredo Fortes, conseiller, LL.M., ambassade du Pérouau Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. JoséAntonio Torrico, conseiller, M.A., ambassade du Pérouau Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. CésarTalavera, premier secrétaire,M.Sc., ambassade du Pérouau Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers ; - 8-
Ms Evelyn Campos Sanchez,Embassy of Peru in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ph.D. candidate, Amsterdam Center for International Law, University of Amsterdam,
Ms Charis Tan, Advocate and Solicitor, Singapore, member of the New York Bar, Solicitor,
England and Wales, Eversheds LLP,
Mr. Raymundo Tullio Treves, Ph.D. candidate, Max Planck Research School for Successful
Disputes Settlement, Heidelberg,
as Assistants.
The Government of the Republic ofChile is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Albert van Klaveren Stork, Ambassador, former Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs,
Ministryf Foreign Affairs, Professorat the University ofChile,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Alfredo Moreno Charme, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile,
as National Authority;
H.E. Mr. Juan Martabit Scaff, Ambassador ofChile to the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands,
H.E. Ms Maria Teresa Infante Caffi, National Director ofFrontiers and Limits, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Professor at the University member of the Institut de droit international,
as Co-Agents;
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies and
Development, Geneva, and at the University of Paris II (Panthéon-Assas), member of the
Institut de droit international,
Mr. James R. Crawford, S.C., LL.D., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University
of Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, Matrix Chambers,
Mr. Jan Paulsson, President of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration, President of
the Administrative Tribunal ofthe OECD, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
:::::::Mx;:J2avidA,_BoJsP.n;AttPr_n<:ly:at-baw;Pa.tt:Qn::B.PggsJib.P;~~washingtQn:I2"Ç~;;-m<:lml>~roLtll~:I3J!rs::····-
-----------···----------of_Californiaand.the_Dist~----------------·---__ ·--··-·--· __-·---~--
Mr. Luigi Condorelli, Professor oflnternational Law, University of Florence,
Mr. Georgios Petrochilos, Avocatur and Advocate of the Greek Supreme Court, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworthiiiem oethe ErigliBarm , em6 oèfhe-Paris -Bar,-Essèx Court
Chambers,
Mr. Claudio Grossman, Dean, R. Geraldson Professor oflnternational Law, American University,
Washington College Law,
as Counsel and Advocates; -9-
Mme Evelyn Campos Sanchez, ambassade du Pérou au Royaume des Pays-Bas, doctorant à
l'Amsterdam Center for International Law, Universitéd'Amsterdam,
Mme Charis Tan, avocat et solicitor (Singapour), membre du barreau de New York, solicitor
(Angleterre et pays de Galles), cabinet Eversheds LLP,
M. Raymundo Tullio Treves, doctorant à l'International Max Planck Research School, section
spécialiséedans le règlementdes différendsinternationaux, Heidelberg,
comme assistants.
Le Gouvernement de la République du Chili est représentépar :
S. Exc. M. Albert van Klaveren Stork, ambassadeur, ancien vice-ministre des relations extérieures,
ministèredes relations extérieures,professeur à l'Universitédu Chili,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Alfredo Moreno Charme, ministre des relations extérieuresdu Chili,
comme membre du Gouvernement ;
S. Exc. M. Juan Martabit Scaff, ambassadeur du Chili auprèsdu Royaume des Pays-Bas,
S. Exc. Mme Maria Teresa Infante Caffi, directeur national, frontières et limites, ministère des
relations extérieures, professeur à l'Université du Chili, membre de l'Institut de droit
international,
comme coagents ;
M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur à l'Institut de hautes études internationales et du
développement de Genève et à l'UniversitéParis II (Panthéon-Assas), membre de l'Institut de
droit international,
M. James R. Crawford, S.C., LL.D., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l'Université de
Cambridge, titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l'Institut de droit international, avocat,
Matrix Chambers,
M. Jan Paulsson, président du Conseil international pour l'arbitrage commercial, président du
Tribunal administratif de l'OCDE, cabinet Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
M. David A. Colson, avocat, cabinet Patton Boggs LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux
de l'Etat de Californie et du district Columbia,
M. Luigi Condorelli, professeur de droit international à l'Universitéde Florence,
M. Georgios Petrochilos, avocat à la Cour et à la Cour suprêmegrecque, cabinet Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
M. Samuel Wordsworth, membre des barreaux d'Angleterre et de Paris, Essex Court Chambers,
M. Claudio Grossman, doyen, professeur titulaire de la Chaire R. Geraldson, American University,
facultéde droit de Washington,
comme conseils et avocats ; - 10-
H.E. Mr. Hernan Salinas, Ambassador, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Professor,
Catholic University ofChile,
H.E. Mr. Luis Winter, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Enrique Barros Bourie, Professor, University ofChile,
Mr. Julio Fa(mdez, Professor, University of Warwick,
Ms Ximena Fuentes Torrijo, Professor, University of Chile,
Mr. Claudio Troncoso Repetto, Professor, University ofChile,
Mr. Andres Jana, Professor, University of Chile,
Ms Mariana Durney, Legal Officer, Ministry ofForeign Affairs,
Mr. John Ranson, Legal Officer, Professor oflnternational Law, Chilean Navy,
Mr. Ben Juratowitch, Solicitor admitted in England and Wales, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
LLP,
Mr. Motohiro Maeda, Solicitor admitted in England and Wales, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
LLP,
Mr. Coalter G. Lathrop, Special Adviser, Sovereign Geographie, member of the North Carolina
Bar,
H.E. Mr. Luis Goycoolea, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Antonio Correa Olbrich, Counsellor, Embassy ofChile in the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands,
Mr. Javier Gorostegui Obanoz, Second Secretary, Embassy of Chile in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Kate Parlett, Solicitor admitted in England and Wales and in Queensland, Australia,
Ms Nienke Grossman, Assistant Professor, University of Baltimore, Maryland, member of the Bars
ofVirginia and the District of Columbia,
"" " " ~ " """ " " ~ " ~ "
Mr. Francisco Abriani, member of the Buenos Aires Bar,
Mr. Paolo Palchetti, Associate Professor oflnternational Law, University of Macerata,
asAdvisers;
Mr. Julio Poblete, National Division ofFrontiers and Limits, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Ms Fiona Bloor, United Kingdom Hydrographie Office,
Mr. Dick Gent, Marine Delimitation Ltd.,
as Technical Advisers. - 11-
S. Exc. M. Hernan Salinas, ambassadeur, conseiller juridique au ministère des relations extérieures,
professeur à l'Universitécatholique du Chili,
S. Exc. M. Luis Winter, ambassadeur, ministère des relations extérieures,
M. Enrique Barros Bourie, professeur à l'Universitédu Chili,
M. Julio Fa(mdez, professeur à l'Universitéde Warwick,
Mme Ximena Fuentes Torrijo, professeur à l'Universitédu Chili,
M. Claudio Troncoso Repetto, professeur à l'Universitédu Chili,
M. Andres Jana, professeur à l'Universitédu Chili,
Mme Mariana Durney, conseiller juridique au ministère des relations extérieures,
M. John Ranson, conseiller juridique, professeur de droit international, marine chilienne,
M. Ben Juratowitch, solicitor (Angleterre et pays de Galles), cabinet Freshfields Bruckhaus
Deringer LLP,
M. Motohiro Maeda, solicitor (Angleterre et pays de Galles), cabinet Freshfields Bruckhaus
Deringer LLP,
M. Coalter G. Lathrop, conseiller spécial, Sovereign Geographie, membre du barreau de Caroline
du Nord,
S. Exc. M. Luis Goycoolea, ministère des relations extérieures,
M. Antonio Correa Olbrich, conseiller à l'ambassade du Chili au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. Javier Gorostegui Obanoz, deuxième secrétaire de l'ambassade du Chili au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
Mme Kate Parlett, solicitor (Angleterre et pays de Galles, et Queensland (Australie)),
Mme Nienke Grossman, professeur adjoint à l'Université de Baltimore, Maryland, membre des
barreaux de l'Etat de Virginie et du district de Columbia,
Mme Alexandra van der Meulen, avocat à la Cour et membre du barreau de l'Etat de New York,
M. Francisco Abriani, membre du barreau de Buenos Aires,
M. Paolo Palchetti, professeur associéde droit international à l'Universitéde Macerata,
comme conseillers ;
M. Julio Poblete, division nationale des frontières et des limites, ministère des relations extérieures,
Mme Fiona Bloor, services hydrographiques du Royaume-Uni,
M. Dick Gent, Marine Delimitation Ltd,
comme conseillers techniques. - 12-
The PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Please be seated. The sitting is now open. This
afternoon the Court will hear Chile begin its first roundl argument. I note the presence at
today's hearingfHis Excellency Mr. Alfredo Moreno, the Minister for Foreign Affairs ofChile. I
give the floor to His Excellency Mr.Klaveren Stark, Agent for Chile. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. VAN KLAVEREN STORK:
1. Introduction
1.1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a great honour for me to appear before this
distinguished Court and a great privilege to represent Chile, a country committed to peace,
co-operation and the rule law in international relations.
1.2. Chile anderu have Iived together in peace for 130 years. We have worked together on
innumerable occasions to further economie integration and development and to improve the lives
of our peoples. Chile conducts its relations with Peru based on principles of good faith, mutual
respect and observancef international agreements.
1.3. Ali boundary issues between Chile andru have been settled for many decades. We
established our land boundary agreement in 1929 and determined and demarcated it in 1929 to
1
1930 • We delimited our maritime boundary in 1952, through a trilateral treaty with Peru, Ecuador
and Chile, called the Declaration on the Maritime, or the Santiago Declaration, in which the
2
three States set forth their claims to0-mile maritime zones • The Parties. concluded the
Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime FrontierZone only two years later, in 1954, and
_ ______-_ ----~_xpre thatsit yas an_integralrme:Lü(jji_~-Sanikîgw Qe_Joloty_and_____a_t___ü____ l:
permanently physically gave effect to the maritime boundary by agreeing in 1968 and 1969 to
4
construct alignment towers to signal the parallelitude constituting the maritime bou•dary
1.4. These agreements are sufficient to establish Chile's case. But Chile's case does not rest
on agreements atone. It is grounded, too, in 60 years of practice confirming the existence of a
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 45; MP, Vol. II, Ann. 54; MP, Vol. II, Ann. 55.
/bidAnn. 47.
/bidAnn. 50.
4
/bidAnn. 59;ibidVol. III, AnnibidAnn. 75; CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 6. - 13 -
fully-delimited, all-purpose maritime boundary. Chile has provided the Court with extensive
evidence demonstrating the agreed position of the Parties. Peru has been rather Jessforthcoming.
And Peru fails to provide any evidence that the all-purpose maritime boundary is instead a
provisional fishing arrangement.
1.5. That argument is pari of Peru's attempt to ask the Court to unsettle the agreed boundary.
It is a new argument unsupported by the historical record. For many decades, both Chile and Peru
have observed their treaty obligations in good faith. By instituting these proceedings, Peru goes so
far as to deny the existence of the maritime boundary, an astounding position to take as we
celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the Santiago Declaration.
1.6.In 1998, Peru and Ecuador concluded an agreement on their land boundary, and in 1999,
Chile and Peru agreed to an Act of Execution granting Peru port facilities in Arica. Subsequently,
in 1999, the Foreign Affairs Committee of Peru's Congress declared these acts "end[ed] any
5
pending possible conflict" with Peru's neighbours • Peru's Foreign Minister separately
reaffirmed this statement at the conclusion of the 1999 Execution Act with Chile 6• Surely the
Foreign Minister and the Peruvian Congress would have known if the maritime boundary was
in dispute or did not exist.
1.7. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this case is about the interpretation and application
of existing treaties. Simply, no maritime spaces require delimitation. Instead, this case calls upon
the Court to uphold pacta sunt servanda and the stability of a previously delimited maritime
boundary.
1.8. The history and background of the Parties' maritime boundary treaty and subsequent
implementing agreements may be summarized in a straightforward way.
2. The Parties' maritime boundary agreement and
subsequent implementing treaties
2.1. In 1947, Chile and Peru issued unilateral and concordant proclamations claiming
sovereignty and jurisdiction- I repeat, sovereignty and jurisdiction- over an area extending to a
5CMC, Vol. IV, Ann. 183.
6
Ibid., Ann. 182. - 14-
minimum of 200 nautical miles off their respective coPeru defined its maritime zone as a
8
seaward projectio"following the line of the geographical parallThis applied to Peru's
lateral limits with both Chile and Ecuador. As Peru's Foreign Affairs Committee subsequently
explained, the 1947 Proclamations were a "necessary antecedent" to the Santiago Declaration and
the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone.
2.2. On 18 August 1952, Chile, Ecuador and Peru concluded the Santiago Declaration.
Professor Dupuy will analyse this agreement shortlyI wish only to emphasize that this
Declaration is and has always been a treaty, as defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties.
2.3. Article IV of the Santiago Declaration established the maritime boundary between the
Parties' respective maritime zones. The boundary line agreed by the Parties to this treaty was and
10
still is "the parallel at the point at which the land frontier of the States conce•ned reaches the sea"
2.4. As Professor Crawford will explain later this afternoon, the Minutes of the Legal Affairs
Commission charged with drafting the Santiago Declaration, the 1952 Minutes, confirm that
Article IV established an all-purpose maritime boundary. Those Minutes record the agreement of
the tl1reecountries that the Santiago Declaration was, to "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
11
frontier of the countries touches or reaches•the sea"
2.5. Two years later, the Parties explicitly reaffirmed their understanding that the Santiago
Declaration established the maritime boundaries between Peru and its neighbours, in the Minutes of
~~~~t ~h~~ ~~:i~~ ~j~( ~i~i·at~ral_c~onf~r~11ce,_Îh~~5A_ ~M- --nutes~,-a~<Lin_the_Ag~eement-~~~ati~g-t~-~-Spe-~lal-M~~itime~-----~--··
Frontier Zone. The Parties entered into the Agreement relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone
on the basis oftheir pre-existing maritime boundary. This was made clear in the title, in the recitals
and in the first operative article.
MP, Vol. II, Ann. ibidAnn. 6.
8
lbidArt. 3.
RC, Vol. III, Anp.1.8,
1MP, Vol. II, Ann. 47, Art. lV.
1IbidAnn. 5p.2.
12
CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 38. - 15-
2.6. Finally, in 1968 and 1969, the Parties concluded agreements to signal the parallel that
constitutes the maritime boundary.
2.7. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the interpretation that the Santiago Declaration
effected a maritime delimitation between Chile and Peru and between Peru and Ecuador bas been
shared by Ecuador since 1952. As Professor Dupuy will explain tomorrow, the 2011 Exchange of
Notes between Peru and Ecuador only serves to confirm this historical interpretation of the
1952 Declaration. Peru refers to this strikingly recent Exchange of Notes between it and Ecuador
in an attempt to improve its position in this case between Peru and Chile. Peru claims that the
Exchange of Notes establishes for the first time a maritime boundary between Peru and Ecuador.
There is no new boundary here. The 2011 parallel is exact1ythe same as the maritime boundary
agreed in the Santiago Declaration and the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier
Zone.
3. Subsequent practice and implementation of the maritime boundary
3.1. Mr. President, Peru and Chile have enjoyed peaceful and quiet possession on either side
of the agreed boundary parallel for 60 years.
3.2. Chile has submitted abundant evidence to the Court showing the use and respect of the
boundary parallel for numero us purposes, ranging from the laying of submarine cables, to fisheries
enforcement, to air space. Peru bad ample opportunities to object to Chile's actions. Yet, it never
did. To the contrary, it vigorously enforced its sovereign rights with repeated references to its
13
maritime frontier •
3.3. Peru argues that it failed to object to repeated incursions into the alleged disputed area
over the course of 60 years because this "was the least contentions option" 1, and Peru did not want
15
to "provoke a confrontation with neighbouring States" • These arguments only confirm the
weakness of its case. Certainly, Peru's conduct was not that of a State whose resources were
allegedly being exploited by its neighbour!
13See CMC, paras. 3.90-3.92, 4.33-4.37; RC 1.31-1.35, 1.44, 3.51-3.55.
14
RP, para. 4.44.
15
/bid. - 16-
3.4. At the domestic levet, Peru's Supreme Resolution No. 23 of 12 January 1955,
recognized that its maritime dominion "shall be limited at sea by a tine parallel to the Peruvian
coast" 16and that this outer limit "may not extend beyond that of the corresponding parallel at the
point where the frontier of Peru reaches the sea" 17• It specifically referred to Article IV of the
Santiago Declaration. In doing so, the Resolution clearly acknowledged that the Santiago
Declaration delimited both ofPeru's maritime boundaries.
3.5. As 1mentioned earlier, a particularly important and explicit recognition of the maritime
boundary came in 1968 and 1969, when Chile and Peru agreed to signal the precise course oftheir
maritime boundary. In agreements concluded during this process, they identified the first boundary
marker oftheir land boundary- known as Hito No. 1- as the reference point for the parallel of
latitude constituting their maritime boundary. They instructed a Mixed Commission "physically to
give effect [materializar] to the parallel that passes through ... Hito No. 1" in order to "signal the
maritime boundary" 1•
3.6. The existence of a clear and stable boundary between Chile and Peru has allowed both
States to develop their economies and to live together jn peace for 60 years. Peru's fisheries
industry is one of the largest in the world. Chile and Peru have co-operated on numerous issues,
including mutually beneficiai activities which were possible because there was no dispute over the
maritime boundary between the two States. Both States acted in reliance on this boundary for half
a century. So, too, have the people of Arica, located only a few kilometres from the common
boundary.
4. Recognition of the agreed boundary at the internationallevel
4.1. Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, the parties to the Santiago Declaration recognized
the boundaries between them, and so too does the international community. Third States' and
international organizations' Official publications have done so on numerous occasions, as have
States pleading before this distinguished Court. Peru did not object to these third-party positions.
1MP, Vol. II, Ann. 9, first operative paragraph.
1Ibid, second operative paragraph.
18
CMC, para. 1.36. See also CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 6. - 17-
4.2. It is weil known that the use of parallels of latitude extending out to sea as maritime
boundaries is part of the practice of Latin American States on the west coast of South America.
Chile, Ecuador, Peru·and Colombia divided their full 200-nautical-mile entitlements in the Pacifie
Ocean along parallels of latitude, as you see in the diagram on your screens.
4.3. A former President of this Court, His Excellency Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga,
explained in a detailed report on South American maritime boundaries that the Santiago
Declaration constituted a delimitation agreement between the three Parties. This is what he wrote
in the series on maritime boundaries published by the American Society ofinternational Law.
"In 1952 the states that were party to the tripartite declaration were opening
entirely new ground in the Law of the Sea by making their 200-nautical mile (n.m.)
claims. In the absence at that time of known principles or agreed rules of
delimitations, they chose the method of the pa19llel of latitude drawn from the point
where the land frontier reaches the sea ... " •
5. Peru's discontent with the existing maritime boundary
5.1. Peru is now evident!y dissatisfied with the maritime boundary that it agreed with Chile
m 1952. Peru's dissatisfaction is not a legitimate basis for unsettling a maritime boundary,
especially one that has preserved peace and driven economie growth on both sides of the boundary
for 60 years. ln 1986, Peru attempted to invite Chile to discuss the existing maritime boundary by
despatching Ambassador Bakula to Santiago because, in his view, the conclusion of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) raised an immediate need to revisit the
20
boundary .
5.2. Peru's invocation of UNCLOS was puzzling then and continues to be so now. The
Santiago Declaration's terms accord with the modern law of the sea embodied in UNCLOS. Chile
ratified UNCLOS and adapted its domestic legislation accordingly. Peru did neither. Peru argues
that UNCLOS is a basis to alter and renegotiate an agreed maritime boundary, yet it is unwilling to
ratifYit.
19
CMC, Vol. V, Ann. 279, pp. 285-286.
20
MP, Vol. III, Ann. 76. - 18-
5.3. Chile's response to Ambassador Bakula's invitation was simple: Chile politely
21
acknowledged receipt of Peru's Note • Peru did not follow up on this démarche. Neither Chile
nor Peru refrained from applying enforcement measures at the maritime boundary. Nothing
changed in 1986 or thereafter. As I have rnentioned, as late as 1999, the Peruvian Foreign Minister
and Congress stated that ali possible conflicts with Peru's neighbours had ended.
5.4. Given this reality, Peru resorts to irrelevancies in its attempts to unsettle the agreed
maritime boundary. It spent 55 pages of its Reply and a good portion of its oral presentation
contriving a non-existent dispute over the location of the land boundary terminus to distract the
Court from the task at band. There is much that can be said on this tapie, but I Iimit myselfto three
dispositive observations.
First, the land boundary was fully delimited and demarcated by agreement in 1929 and 1930,
and Hito No. 1 is its most seaward determined point.
Second, Hito No. 1 is the agreed reference point for the parallel of latitude that constitutes the
maritime boundary.
Third, Peru cannat se ise this Court of any matter concerning the delimitation or demarcation of
the land boundary, as this is a matter "already settled by arrangement between the parties" in
the sense of Article VI of the Pact of Bogota. Ali outstanding land boundary issues were
settled in 1929, when Peru and Chile concluded the Treaty of Lima. This treaty remains in full
force and effect.
6.1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, together with its claim for maritime delimitation,
Peru asks the Court as a second claim, to adjudge and declare that "[b]eyond the point where the
common maritime border ends, Peru is entitled to exercise sovereign rights over a maritime area
22
lying out to a distance of 200 nautical miles from its baselines" • Peru calls this area "the outer
triangle"; Chile calls it the "alta mar".
2MP, Vol. III, Ann. 109, para. 2.
22
MP, p. 275. - 19-
6.2. Peru characterized this claim as being "independent and complementary" 23to its first
submission. The Court will have no difficulty recognizing it as an alternative claim, as Peru itself
did on Tuesday. It arises only upon the Court's confirmation of the agreed 200-nautical-mile
boundary along the parallel of latitude.
6.3. Peru argues that it is entitled to enjoy exclusive sovereign rights over this area, which
has always been treated as high seas by Chile, Peru and the international community. As
Mr. Colson will explain tomorrow, the Santiago Declaration established a complete and
comprehensive maritime boundary. No areas remained to be delimited. No claims remained to be
resolved. The parties agreed that Chile could not extend its jurisdiction to the north of the
boundary parallel, and that Peru could not extend itsjurisdiction to the south of the same parallel.
The parties are bound by the Santiago Declaration.
7. Conclusion
7.1. Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, in conclusion, it is Chile's position that:
1. the maritime zones of Chile and Peru have been fully delimited by agreement;
2. the maritime boundary between Chile and Peru is "the parallel at the point at which the land
frontierof the States concerned reaches the sea";
3. that is the parallel ofHito No. 1with a latitude of18° 21'00" Sin the WGS84 Datum; and
4. Peru has no entitlement to any maritime zone south ofthat parallel.
7.2. Mr. President, Chile's presentation today continues with Professor Dupuy, who will
address the legal character of the Santiago Declaration. Next, Mr. Colson will clarify Peru's
confusing account of the tracé parallel. Then Professor Crawford will explain the key agreements
establishing and confirming the maritime boundary.
7.3. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président,Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, de votre
attention. Je vous prie, Monsieur le président, de bien vouloir donner la parole au
professeur Dupuy.
2RP, para.6.6. - 20-
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur l'ambassadeur. Je donne la parole au professeur Dupuy.
Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.
M.DUPUY:
LA NATURE JURIDIQUE DE LA DÉCLARATION DE SANTIAGO
1. Monsieur le président,Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, c'est toujours un honneur et un
plaisir de plaider devant vous et je suis particulièrement reconnaissant à la République du Chili de
pouvoir le faire aujourd'hui en son nom.
2. Le premier tour des plaidoiries du Pérou nous a confirmé, mais était-ce bien nécessaire,
tout le talent de ses avocats et conseils, et leur grande aptitude à estomper les aspéritésdu dossier
difficile qu'il leur étaitdemandé de défendre. Sans comporter de réelles nouveautés par rapport
aux thèses défenduesdans les écriturespéruviennes,ce premier tour a néanmoinsapportéson lot de
surprises, petites ou grandes, aussi relatives soient-elles. Il a pu notamment paraître étonnant que
MeBundy souligne l'inexistence de frontières maritimes dont il avait pourtant pris soin de noter
l'importance dans l'excellent ouvrage intitulé«Maritime Boundaries», au chapitre dont le titre est
«State Practice in Maritime Delimitation».
[Projection.]
3. On trouve dans cet ouvrage d~ référencenon seulement la mention mais la représentation
cartographique des frontières dont il dit bien lui-mêmequ'elles ont étéopéréespar voie d'accord
entre le Chili et le Pérouainsi qu'entre le Pérouet l'Equateur.
4. Toutefois, un tel exemple, pris parmi bien d'autres, semblerait presque anecdotique par
rapport à l'accentuation radicale d'une tendance jusque-là manifestée avec beaucoup plus de
prudence dans les écritures péruviennes. Celle qui consiste, toute honte bue, à ne plus vraiment
remettre en cause le fait que la déclaration de Santiago soit bel et bien un traité, comportant des
dispositions authentiquement normatives dont certaines manifestent qu'elles portent également sur
la délimitation des frontières maritimes. Certes, le mémoire et la répliquepéruviens nous avaient
déjàmis en présencedu malaise manifestement ressenti par le Péroulorsqu'il abordait la question,
pourtant absolument fondamentale, de la nature juridique propre à la déclaration de Santiago. On - 21 -
avait ainsi assistéaux glissements progressifs de la sémantique péruvienne dont vous trouverez la
liste, au demeurant incomplète, à l'onglet n° 31 de votre dossier. Je n'en donnerai ici que quelques
exemples. Au début de son mémoire, le ton est encore radical : «The Declaration was
conceived ... not as a treaty but as a proclamation ofthe international maritime policy of the three
24
States.»
5. Très vite pourtant, le Pérou introduit l'idéeque cette nature non conventionnelle aurait
évoluéavec le temps. Toujours dans son mémoire, il poursuit en disant de la mêmedéclaration
25
qu'elle avait été «initially conceived as a soft law instrument» , which «acquired the status of a
26
treaty» • Se ravisant tout aussitôt après, comme si elle prenait conscience du péril que cette
reconnaissance pourrait faire courir à ses propres thèses, la répliquepéruviennerevient d'abord à la
27
thèse initiale selon laquelle la déclaration n'étaitqu'un «provisional declarative instrument» ou
28
bien encore «a purely political instrument» , dont elle consent tout de mêmeà admettre qu'elle en
vint à être «treated as though it were a treaty» 29 !
6. Alors on a retrouvé cette valse d'hésitations péruviennes au débutde la semaine, mais
l'amplitude des pas de tango jusque-là effectués s'est radicalement réduitejusqu'à ne plus vraiment
remettre en cause la réalitéconventionnelle de la déclaration, au point que j'ai dü modifier le texte
de la plaidoirie que j'avais moi-mêmepréparée,ce qui, je dois le confesser, Monsieur le président,
est toujours péniblepour un plaideur !
7. Certes, on retrouve dans les propos de mon éminentcollègue le professeur Vaughan Lowe
la prudence bien tempéréedes premiers jours. Il nous disait mardi dernier que la déclarationétait
30
tout au plus «an initial step, a manifesto. It is not a self-executing agreement» ,ce qui étaitdéjà
pourtant, rut-ce de façon involontaire, une façon de reconnaître que c'étaitbien «an agreement».
24MP, par. 4.70.
25Ibid., par. 4.81.
26
Ibid., par. 4.70 (les italiques sont de nous).
27
RP, par. 6.
28
Ibid., par. 3.144.
29Ibid.
° CR 2012/28, p. 24, par. 57 (Lowe). -22-
8. Cependant, bien vite, nos distingués contradicteurs n'ont pas pu faire autrement que de
s'appuyer sur la déclaration de Santiago; ceci, pour défendre précisémentla conception qu'ils se
font des droits dont ils reconnaissent ainsi qu'ils trouvent leur fondement dans ce mêmeinstrument.
C'est, en particulier, ce qu'il advint à mon ami le professeur Pellet lorsqu'il lui a fallu, mardi
après-midi, s'aventurer dans la haute mer du «triangle extérieur» ! Il vous disait ainsi, en
s'appuyant sur le texte de la déclaration, que «le Pérou est fondé à revendiquer l'exercice de sa
juridiction et de ses droits souverains sur le triangle extérieur à la fois en vertu mêmedu point II de
31
la déclaration et indépendamment de celle-ci» • Point II dont il disait un peu plus loin qu'il
«accorde les mêmesdroits aux trois partenaires» 32• Le professeur Pellet s'appuyait par ailleurs tout
aussi bien sur le point IV pour constater qu'il désigne «le parallèle passant par le point où aboutit
<
33
en mer la frontière terrestre des Etats en cause» •
9. Dans ces conditions, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, est-il encore nécessaire pour moi
de relever l'ensemble des preuves du caractère conventionnel, c'est-à-dire juridiquement liant des
dispositions que comporte la déclaration de Santiago ?
1O.Ce qui m'incite à répondre positivement, en dépitde l'atténuation très sensible des thèses
péruviennes sur ce point, c'est que le Pérou, malgré la mise en Œuvre d'un prudent repli
stratégique, n'a pas pour autant totalement éliminé la dualité de ses thèses à l'égard de la
déclaration, tantôt perçue comme proclamation politique, tantôt utilisée comme fondement
juridique de ses prétentions. C'est aussi parce que la discussion de la nature juridique de la
déclaration est le plus souvent menée par le Pérouà l'occasion de l'analyse de son objet, dont ses
______________ S._!1S§jls_011Lc_Qntin _nà_r_ép.éteLqu.'.iLne_pou:v:_ac itncerneL1a_délimitation_maritime. ___ Je_m.:en___
tiendrai quoi qu'il en soit à l'essentiel, en vous rappelant d'abord que l'intention des trois Etats
parties étaitbien que la déclaration soit un traité; ensuite, que la conduite subséquente des parties a
bel et bien confirmé cette intention initiale.
31CR 2012/29, p. 51,par.19 (Pellet)
32
Ibid., p53,par.24 (Pellet).
33Ibid., p53,par.23 (Pellet). -23-
1.LA DÉCLARATION DE SANTIAGO A TOUJOURS ÉTÉ UN TRAITÉ COMPORTANT DES
DISPOSITIONS RELATIVES À LA DÉLIMITATION
11. La jurisprudence de la Cour destinéeà déterminerla nature juridique, conventionnelle ou
non, d'un acte juridique est caractériséepar sa grande constance. On peut l'énoncer en deux
principes au demeurant bien connus : en premier lieu, la fonne et, en particulier, l'intituléde l'acte
sont sans pertinence sur sa nature juridique ; en second lieu, ce qui, en revanche, est déterminant
c'est l'intention des Parties, telle qu'expriméepar le texte et le contexte de l'instrument en cause.
A. L'indifférencede l'intituléet de la forme de la déclarationde Santiago
au regard du droit international
12. J'irai très vite sur ce point, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, tant il semble désormais
admis par la Partie adverse. En droit international, l'intituléd'un instrument tel que choisi par les
parties n'affecte en aucune manière sa qualification. Comme l'a dit notamment la Cour dans
l'affaire duSud-Ouest africain, lors de l'examen des exceptions préliminaires:
«La terminologie n'est pas un élémentdéterminant quant au caractère d'un
accord ou d'un engagement international. Dans la pratique des Etats et des
organisations internationales, comme dans la jurisprudence des tribunaux
internationaux, on trouve des usages très variés.» (Sud-Ouest africain (Ethiopie
c. Afrique du Sud; Libéria c. Afrique du Sud), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,
C.IJ Recueil 1962, p.331.)
Cette évidenceest constamment reprise par la jurisprudence internationale inspiréepar votre haute
juridiction34•
13. Au demeurant, les exemples abondent d'instruments s'intitulant «déclarations»et dont la
qualification de «traité»ne fait pourtant aucun doute. La Cour pennanente de Justice internationale
l'avait d'ailleurs reconnu en 1931 déjà dans son avis consultatif sur le Régime douanier entre
l'Allemagne et l'Autriche lorsqu'elle déclarait: «Au point de vue du caractère obligatoire des
engagements internationaux, on sait que ceux-ci peuvent êtrepris sous fonne de traités, de
conventions, de déclarations,d'accords, de protocoles ou de notes échangées.» (Régimedouanier
entre l'Allemagne et l'Autriche, avis consultatif, 1931,C.P.JI. sérieA/B n°41, p. 47.)
34
Voir Différendrelatif à la délimitationde la ji·ontière maritime entre le Bangladesh et le Myanmar dans le
golfe du Bengale (Bangladesh/Myanma!"},TIDM., arrêtdu 14 mars 2012, par. 89: «ln the view of the tribunal, what is
important is not the form or designation of an instrument but its legal nature and content.» -24-
14. Plus près de nous, dans l'affaire relative à la Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le
Cameroun et le Nigeria, votre haute juridiction avait de mêmeaffirmé à propos d'accords de
délimitation:
«La Cour estime que la déclarationde Maroua constitue un accord international
conclu par écritentre Etats et traçant une frontière; elle est donc régiepar le droit
internati35al et constitue un traitéau sens de la convention de Vienne sur le droit des
traités.» (Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria
(Cameroun c. Nigéria;Guinéeéquatoriale(intervenant)), arrêt,C.IJ Recueil 2002,
par. 263.)
15. C'est, du reste, ce que le Pérou est bien obligé de reconnaître lui-mêmedans sa
36
réplique • Alors, quoi qu'il en soit, les observations dépréciativesà l'égard du texte de la
déclarationfaites mardi matin par le professeur Lowe, lorsqu'il croyait encore pouvoir s'appuyer
sur le fait que la déclaration ne comporte pas d'articles intitulés comme tels 37, m'amènent à
souligner ici les similitudes existant entre la déclarationde Maroua précitéeet celle de Santiago.
Dans chacune des deux déclarations, les signataires ne sont pas formellement désignéscomme
«parties» ; de plus, les différentesdispositions de la déclarationde Maroua, pas plus que celles de
38
Santiago, ne sont précédéed su terme «article» suivi d'un numéro •
16. On pourrait au demeurant citer bien d'autres exemples d'accords de délimitation
maritime pourtant intitulés «déclaration», telle, par exemple, la «déclaration entre la France et
Monaco concernant la délimitationdes eaux territoriales de la Principautéde Monaco», conclue et
entrée en vigueur le 20 avril 1967 et, consécutivement enregistrée par le Secrétaire généralet
39
publiéeau Recueil des traités des Nations Unies •
ailleurs requise, dèslors que l'instrument traduit clairement l'intention des parties de déterminerle
tracéde la frontière. Peu importe si les attributs qui, selon le Pérou,sont «généralementemployés»
35
C'est d'ailleurs aussi la thèse de la doctrine et de la jurisprudence citéespar le Pérou: A. Aust, Modern Treaty
Law and Practice, p. 17 (cité dans PR, par. 3.153) et Délimitation maritime et questions territoriales entre Qatar et
Bahreïn (Qatar c. Bahrel"n),compétenceet recevabilité,arrêt,C.I.J. Recuei/1994, p. 120, par. 23.
36RP, par. 3.153 et note de bas de page n° 291.
37
CR 2012/28, p. 23, par. 52 (Lowe).
38
OC, vol. II, annexe 5.
39Recueil des traitésdes Nations Unies, vol. 1516, p. 131. -25-
40
dans les traitésde délimitationsont absents ou non de la déclarationde Santiago • Ainsi, dans
votre arrêtrelatif à l'affaireLibye/Tchad, la Cour déclarait-elle:
«Les parties auraient pu indiquer les frontières en en précisantlittéralementle
tracéou en portant celui-ci sur une carte, à titre d'illustration ou à tout autre titre ; elles
auraient pu faire l'un et l'autre. Elles ont décidé de procéderdifféremment, et de
dresser d'un commun accord la liste des actes internationaux dont résultaient les
frontières, mais la méthode qu'elles ont choisie ne suscite aucune difficulté
d'interprétation ... Le texte de l'article 3 traduit clairement l'intention des parties
d'assurer un règlement définitif de la question de leurs frontières communes.»
(Différendterritorial (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne/Tchad), arrêt,C.LJ. Recuei/1994,
p. 25, par. 51.)
18. Dans l'affaire du Temple de Préah Vihéar, la Cour avait auparavant reconnu qu'une
référencegénéralesuffisait à démontrer l'intention commune des parties de délimiter une
frontière: «La mention de la ligne de partage des eaux à l'article lerde la convention de 1904
n'étaiten soi rien de plus qu'une façon évidenteet commode de décrirela frontièreobjectivement
qumqu en ermes generaux.» 41
B. Les circonstances de l'adoption de la déclaration de Santiago confirment l'intention
des Parties de conclure un traité régipar le droit international
19. Si l'on aborde alors les circonstances de l'adoption de la déclarationde Santiago, on voit
qu'elle confirme l'intention des Parties de conclure un traitérégipar le droit international. L'objet
principal de la déclaration de Santiago était d'affirmer à la fois politiquement et juridiquement
vis-à-vis des autres Etats l'extension par trois Etats signataires de leur «souverainetéet juridiction»,
pour employer l'expression retenue à l'article Il, jusqu'à 200 milles nautiques de leurs côtes
respectives. Le Péroua beaucoup insistélà-dessus lors de ses récentesplaidoiries, mais de façon
bien inutile car cela n'a jamais étécontestépar le Chili. Quoi qu'il en soit, cette ferme prise de
position trilatérale,d'abord destinéeà la sauvegarde de leurs ressources naturelles, les deux Etats
parties sont égalementd'accord là-dessus, constituait à l'époqueune nouveauté,une innovation. Et
cette innovation étaitsuffisante pour justifier l'emploi solennel du terme «déclaration»adresséeau
reste de la communauté internationale. Pour autant, cette démarche collective en impliquait
immédiatement une autre, déjà préparéedans l'ordre interne par les proclamations unilatérales
40MP, par. 4.81.
41
Temple de PréahVihéar(Cambodge c. Thaïlande).fond, arrêt,C.I.J. Recuei/196p.35. -26-
adoptéesdès 1947 par le Chili et le Pérou: celle d'établirentre eux et à 1'égarddes tiers les limites
latéralesde leurs frontièresmaritimes respectives afin que chacun des trois pays concernéssache à
l'intérieur de quel espace il serait ainsi amené à exercer sa juridiction pour contribuer à la
réalisationd'un objectif commun.
20. Comme ils devaient le réaffirmer les uns et les autres deux ans plus tard, lors de la
conférencede Lima ayant conduit à la conclusion de la convention sur la zone frontalière maritime
spéciale,l'intention du Chili, de l'Equateur et du Pérou,dès1952, avait bel et bien étéde conclure
un traité (et un traité de délimitation maritime) régi par le droit international et imposant des
obligations à la charge de chacune des parties.
21. Le fait que la déclaration, négociéepar trois délégationscomprenant leurs conseillers
juridiques respectifs, étaitdestinéeà établirdes droits et des obligations, ainsi que l'a finalement
reconnu mardi après-midi mon ami Alain Pellet, ressort clairement du texte de cet instrument.
Ainsi, vous le trouvez à l'onglet n°32 de votre dossier, l'invitation à la conférence de 1952
envoyée par le Chili à l'Equateur décrit-elle l'un des objectifs de cette conférence dans les
termes suivants (vous trouverez la traduction successivement en français et en anglais du texte
espagnol) : [projection] «1. Mar Territorial. Legalizaci6n de las declaraciones de los Presidentes de
42
Chile y Peru, en cuanto a la soberania sobre 200 millas de aguas continentales.»
22. L'emploi du terme «Legalizaci6n» désignebien la volontéde créerun nouvel ensemble
d'obligations juridiques entre les parties, ce qui, dans l'ordre international, se fait par voie de traité.
De la mêmemanière, aux termes du point ou article II de la déclaration, les parties s'obligent
qu'il en soit inutile d'insister outre mesure sur le caractère délibérémenn tormatif des dispositions
de la déclaration après la reconnaissance dont cet élémenta fait l'objet dans les plaidoiries
péruviennesde lundi et mardi dernier, en particulier pour ce qui concerne, on l'a déjàrappelé,les
points II et IV. Notons simplement que la rédaction du point III, notamment, ne laisse pas
davantage place au doute à cet égardquant à l'intention des parties de constituer des obligations
juridiques liantes dans cet instrument. Ainsi de l'article 3, figurant à l'ongletn° 5 de votre dossier,
42CMC, vol. III, annexe p.487. - 27-
qui dispose [projection] : «La juridiction et la souveraineté exclusives sur la zone maritime
indiquée entraînent également souveraineté et juridiction exclusives sur le sol et le sous-sol de
ladite zone.»
23. Ces termes, Monsieur le président,Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, sont précis; ils se
suffisent à eux-mêmes; ils créentdes droits et obligations à la charge de chacune des Parties. Et
encore une fois lorsqu'à l'occasion il s'y trouve amené,le Péroureconnaît lui-mêmele caractère
contraignant de l'une au moins de ses dispositions, mais pas seulement, en particulier l'article IV 43•
Il est vrai que, à propos de la délimitationque cet article IV effectue, MeBundy nous disait qu'elle
n'avait pas étéétablieen 1952, mais par l'échangede notes du 2 mai 2011 44• Nous n'avons pas le
temps ici de nous appesantir sur cette incohérencedes thèsesadverses.
24. Alors, avec tout le respect dû à un Etat souverain comme à ses défenseurs,nous nous
permettrons de constater qu'il faudrait que le Péroufinisse par choisir la thèsequ'il défend! Il ne
peut pas dire, à la fois, que la déclarationn'est pas un traitéet en mêmetemps qu'elle créebien des
obligations bilatéralesentre lui et le Chili, lorsqu'il s'agit du «triangle extérieur»,ou entre lui et
l'Equateur, lorsqu'il s'agit du tracé de la ligne de la délimitationmaritime ! Et s'il fallait le croire,
la déclarationde Santiago serait une sorte d'étrangeacte mixte, sans portéejuridique obligatoire
mais co.mportantà l'occasion une dimension conventionnelle. Sorte de chimèreà multiples faces,
en quelque sorte, ou plutôt, acte dont la portéejuridique serait à géométrie variable, et que le Pérou
pourrait invoquer, selon qu'il le désire,sous la forme tantôt déclaratoiretantôt conventionnelle. Il
faut pourtant choisir !
25. Quoi qu'il en soit, le caractèrecontraignant des dispositions de la déclarationde Santiago
n'est nullement restreint aux articles que nous avons déjàcités.
26. On pourrait citer, par exemple, le point VI, lequel énonce en termes clairs une très
45
classique obligatio de contrahendo destinéeà la conclusion d'accords en vue de définirle régime
43 Voir RP, par. 3.71 et 3.81.
44 CR 2012/29, p. 13, par. 55 (Bundy).
45 «Los Gobiernos de Chile, Ecuador y Peru expresan su prop6sito de suscribir acuerdos o
convenciones para la aplicaci6n de los principios indicados en esta Declaraci6n en los cuales se
establecerân normas generales destinadas a reglamentar y proteger la caza y la pesca dentro de la zona
maritima que les corresponde, y a regular y coordinar la explotaci6n y aprovechamientolquier otro
género de productor o riquezas naturales existentes en dichas aguas y que sean de interéscornun.» -28-
de protection de la chasse et de la pêche,de mêmeque l'exploitation des ressources naturelles à
l'intérieur des zones maritimes établies dans la déclaration. Cette obligation a dü reste été
46
scrupuleusement respectée par les Parties, et ce, dès1954 • On constate ainsi que se trouve
parfaitement satisfait le critère de l'intentionnalitéclairement définipar votre jurisprudence pour
l'identification de la nature conventionnelle d'un instrument multilatéral.
27. On observera du reste que, dans le préambulede la convention de 1954, elle-même
qualifiéede complémentaire,dois-je y insister, les trois Etats prendront soin de rappeler qu'ils
avaient déjàproclaméleur souverainetésur les mers baignant leurs côtes jusqu'à une distance de
200 milles nautiques.
28. Or, il ne faisait pas de doute, aussi bien pour le Pérouque pour le Chili et l'Equateur, que
cette proclamation résultaitbien d'un traité, la déclarationde Santiago ; puisque, aussi bien la
convention complémentaire que la convention sur la zone frontalière maritime spéciale
mentionnent, selon leurs propres termes, «los acuerdos de Santiago», le principal d'entre eux étant
précisémentla déclaration. C'est en application de cet accord initial que ces conventions ont
elles-mêmesétéconclues. Au demeurant, et j'en viens au second point de cette plaidoirie, la
pratique subséquentedes parties.à ce traiténe fait que confirmer que la conviction des trois Etats
était d'avoir conclu un accord dès la déclaration, affirmée comme texte fondateur de leur
engagement.
II.La pratique subséquente des Etats parties à la déclaration de Santiago
confirme que celle-ci a toujours étéun traité
·····-· .-----Q ··· .Le--.actes..ultérieu..des...Etats...pa.à.a..déclaration..confirmenLque_les_parties.ont
toujours considéréqu'elle étaitun traitéinternational ab initiac'est-à-dire dès l'adoption de cet
instrument, en aoüt 1952, selon le critèreretenu par la Cour dans l'affairPlateau continental de
la mer Eee .47
30. Dans sa plaidoirie de mardi matin, le professeur Lowe suggéraitqu'aucun document
contemporain ne pouvait indiquer que les Etats avaient conclu un accord de délimitation. Ceci est
inexact, et la pratique subséquentedont il s'agit ici est en particulier avéréepar trois sériesde
46Voir, par exemple, MP, vol. II, annexe 51, p. 282.
47Plateau continental de la mer Egée(Grècec. Turquie), arrêt,C.LJ. Recueil/978, par. 106. - 29-
manifestations concordantes. Ce sont, respectivement, les initiatives prises, dans son ordre interne,
par chacun des trois Etats pour ratifier la sériedes instruments adoptés le 18 août 1952 dont le
premier et le plus soletmel est précisémentla déclarationde Santiago ; la seconde manifestation de
la conviction des trois pays cosignataires selon laquelle la déclaration était un instrument
conventionnel est constituée par l'enregistrement de la déclaration auprès des Nations Unies.
Enfin, les prises de position respectives des trois pays, sur lesquelles mes collègues comme moi
auront l'occasion de revenir ultérieurement, confirment bien, si besoin en était,què pour chacun
d'entre eux, y compris le Pérou pendant plus de cinquante ans, pour ce qui le concerne, la
déclarationde Santiago étaitun traité.
A. Les procédures de ratification de la déclaration adoptées dans son ordre interne par
chacun des trois Etats
[Projection.]
31. Vous les trouverez sous l'onglet n° 33. C'est le Pérouqui ouvre la marche, si j'ose dire:
le premier des trois, il adopte le 11 avril1953, soit moins d'un an après l'adoption de la
déclaration, une «résolution suprême» signée par le président de la République indiquant
explicitement qu'elle «approuve» [«aprueba»] la déclarationsur la zone maritime signéeà Santiago
du Chili le 18 août 1952, instrument dont elle prend soin d'indiquer antérieurementqu'il contient,
je traduis littéralement,«des dispositions et compromis qui rentrent dans les attributions du pouvoir
48
exécutif, conformément à l'article 154, alinéa8, de la Constitution de l'Etat» . Cette
reconnaissance du caractère conventionnel de la déclaration précèdeainsi sa réitérationpar la
«résolutionsuprême»du 12janvier 1955, adoptéepar le ministèredes affaires étrangèresdu Pérou,
dans laquelle l'existence des lignes de parallèles géographiques est spécifiquement mentionnée
comme frontières maritimes entre les trois pays 49 et sur laquelle le commentaire de
M. Garcfa Sayan, ministre des affaires étrangères de l'époque, apporte les plus utiles
informations 50• Plus tard, la «résolutionlégislative»n° 12305 adoptéepar le Congrès prendra acte
48
«Tratandose de una Declaraci6n que comprende disposiciones y compromisos que se encuentran dentro de las
atribuciones que corresponden aloder Ejecutivo, conforme el incisa octavo del articula 154 de la Constituci6n del
Estado.» CMC, vol. IV, annexe 161, p. 974.
49
Ibid., annexe 170, p. 1024.
50Ibid., vol. V, annexe 266, p. 1585. - 30-
de l'approbation des accords de Santiago antérieurement effectuée par le président de la
Républiqueen vertu de la Constitution
[Projection.]
32. On trouve ensuite, sous l'onglet n°34, en date du 23 septembre 1954, le «décret
suprême» n°432 cette fois adopté par le président de la République du Chili, et portant
approbation, nous dit son titre, des «déclarations et conventions entrehili, le Pérou et
l'Equateur, convenues lors de la première conférence sur l'exploitation et la conservation des
52
richesses maritimes du Pacifique» • Ce décretintervient au terme d'une procédureclassique
de ratification de ces divers instruments conventionnels ; son dernier paragraphe indique
précisémentqu'ils ont étéaprobados por el Congreso Nacional», c'est-à-dire approuvés par le
Congrès.
[Projection.]
33. Vient enfin, troisième, l'EquateurQuant à lui, c'est par le biais du décretn°25
du 7 février1955 que le président de la République de l'Equateur ratifie aux termes exacts de
l'article premier,traduis littéralement,«les instruments internationaux souscrits à Santiago, le
18 août 1952». Vous l'avez sous les yeux.
34. Il est ainsi très frappant, Monsieur le président,de constater que, dans les trois Etats, la
procédurede ratification achevéepar l'adoption d'un décretprésidentielvise toujours l'ensemble
des instruments adoptés le mêmejour à Santiago dont le plus important est toujours la
«Declaraci6n sobre zona maritima», restée dans l'histoire sous le nom de «déclaration de
---~~~----____s_®1 _lp!sioér_é_e_Das_même_titre_queJes_autres_actes_jur.idiq
oncernés-comme-un-traité----------------·---
international.
51
MP, vol. Il, annexe 10, p. 42.
52«aprueba las declaraciones y convenios entre Chili, Peru y Ecuador, concertados en la primera conferencia
sobre explotaci6n y conservaci6n de las riquezas maritimas del Pacifico Sur». MP, vol. II, annexe 30, p. 146. - 31 -
B. La procédure d'enregistrement de la déclaration de Santiago auprès
des Nations Unies confirme que la déclaration est un traité
35. Le Chili, le Pérouet l'Equateur ont, de manièreconjointe, procédéà cet enregistrement
53
par lettre envoyée auprès des Nations Unies le 3 décembre1973 • Il est vrai que cet
enregistrement est bien embarrassant pour le Pérou. Alors ildit dans sa réplique:
«[P]rimary reason for registration may weil have been a desire further to
enhance the political weight of the Declaration in the context of the hard-fought
negotiations on the 200-nautical-mile maritime zone at UNCLOS III.» 54
36. Cependant, outre le fait que cette interprétationembarrasséecadre mal avec le récitque
le professeur Treves nous faisait l'autre jour de l'attitude péruvienneà la troisièmeconférence,on
voit mal pourquoi une déclaration politique ferait l'objet d'une procédure réservée à
l'enregistrement des traités ! Toujours est-il que cette demande d'enregistrement concernait en tout
douze instruments adoptésdans le cadre de la commission du Pacifique Sud entre 1952 et 1967 et,
en réponseà la demande du Secrétairegénéraldes Nations Unies de lui faire parvenir davantage
d'informations s'agissant de certains traitésdont l'enregistrement étaitdemandé,une déclaration
officielle fut émisepar chacun des trois Etats parties à ces instruments : dans une déclaration
adresséeaux Nations Unies, le Chili confirma en 1971 que la déclarationde Santiago est entréeen
vigueur au jour de sa signature 55• Quant au Pérou,par l'entremise de son représentantpermanent
auprès des Nations Unies, dans une lettre envoyée au Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies
en 1976 56,c'est-à-dire au cŒurde la troisièmeconférencedes Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer
(1977), il déclaraque les trois Etats concernéss'étaientmis d'accord, lors de la treizièmeréunion
ordinaire de la commission précitéepour l'enregistrement de ces instruments tripartites auprèsdes
Nations Unies. Cela ne peut que se comprendre implicitement comme l'admission de la nature
conventionnelle de la déclaration.
[Projection.]
37. En conséquence,le Secrétairegénéral procédaà l'enregistrement de la déclarationen tant
que traité au sens de l'article 102 de la Charte. Le Recueil des traités des Nations Unies précise
53CMC, vol. III,annexe 83, p. 597.
54
RP, par. 3.168.
55RC,vol. II, annexe 52, p. 307.
56Ibid.,annexe29, p. 157. - 32-
d'ailleurs que cet instrument étaitentréen vigueur au jour de sa signa•urOr, il est tout à fait
remarquable de constater quele demandeur dans la présenteaffaire n'a, ni avant le commencement
de cette affaire ni depuis, émisde protestation à l'encontre de cet enregistrement ni de la mention
ajoutée par le Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies. Nous ne reviendrons pas ici sur la mise en
cause par le Pérou de l'efficacité de cet enregistrement en raison de la date à laquelle il est
intervenu. Est-il besoin de rappeler ici votre jurisprudence selon laquelle l'enregistrement tardif est
«sans conséquence sur la validité même de l'accord, qui n'en lie pas moins les parties».
(Délimitation maritime et questions territoriales entre Qatar et Bahreïn (Qatar c. Bahrein),
compétenceet recevabilité,arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil1994,. 122, p. 29.)
B. La déclarationde Santiago apparaît comme une source d'obligations
dans les déclarationsdu Pérouet du Chili dèsson adoption
1. Déclarationsdu Pérouet du Chili
38. Dans le cadre de la ratification par le Parlement péruviende la déclaration de Santiago,
M. Pefia Prado, l'un des membres du comité des affaires étrangèresdu Parlement péruvien décrit
les objectifs des conférences de 1952 et de 1954 comme étant«d'établirles limites maritimes entre
58
les pays signataires»• Ceci démontre bien que le comité des affaires étrangères du Pérou
considérait que la déclaration de Santiago était un traité et qu'il avait délimitéles frontières
39. En 1958, dans sa déclaration du 13 mars, à la première conférencedes Nations Unies sur
···············roitdelamer;:·M:~EnriqueGarcfa:Sa:yan,toujoï diess•aIffiai:rens.éëtrtanigè1ressdru·.:~····
Pérou, parle au nom de sa délégationde la déclaration de Santiago comme d'un instrument de
«droit positif» : «Tinstruments ofpositive lawhich stated Peru's position were the decree of
1 August 1947 and the pact with Chile and Ecuador, referred ta as the Santiago Declaration,
signedin 1952.»60
57MP, vol. II, annexe 47, p. 261.
58
CMC, vol. I, annexe 246, p. 1469.
59
RC, par. 2.74 et suiv.
60
MP, vol. III, annexe 101, p. 602 (les italiques sont de nous). -33-
40. La retranscription de cette intervention dans la revue péruvienne Revista Peruana de
Derecho Internacional va tout à fait dans le mêmesens ; e11econfirme que la déclarationde
Santiago est un «traitéinternational avec force contraignante pour les Parties» 61•
41. De la mêmemanière, les déclarations du Chili au lendemain de l'adoption de la
déclarationconfirment l'identitéd'interprétation de son statut par les trois pays : ainsi, du ministre
chilien des affaires étrangèreslors de la session d'inauguration de la réunionde la CPPS en 1954
qui, on le verra, non sans un certain talent prophétique,affirmait :
«Nous avons pleine confiance dans le fait que petit à petit, l'expression
juridique que nos trois pays ont formulée dans l'accord de 52 ira en s'amplifiant
jusqu'à être reconnue par tous les gouvernements désireux de préserver pour
l'humanitéles richesses aujourd'hui détruitespar l'exercice anarchique d'exploitations
62
individue11es...»
2. La déclaration de Santiago a étéinvoquée par le Chili, l'Equateur et le Pérou dans le cadre
de leurs négociations avec les Etats-Unis
42. Les trois Etats parties à la déclarationont invoquécelle-ci dans le cadre du différendqui
les opposait aux Etats-Unis s'agissant des revendications maritimes des Etats du Pacifique Sud.
Il ressort de ces déclarationsque les trois Etats se sentaient liésen vertu de la déclarationde
Santiago. Ainsi, en 1963, face à une protestation des Etats-Unis à propos de la saisine par le Pérou
de navires battant pavillon américain,le Pérouinvoque-t-il ses obligations internationales en vertu
de la déclarationde Santiago : «Furthennore [Peru is] bound by its international obligations under
the 1952 Santiago Declaration and other acts undertaken with Chile and Ecuador.» 63
43. Comment, dès lors, ayant par le passéinvoquéla déclarationde Santiago en tant que
traitécomme source d'obligations internationales, le Péroupourrait-il aujourd'hui légitimement
nier le caractère conventionnel de la déclarationdèsson adoption? C'est l'une des nombreuses
questions qu'il faut ici lui poser. Mais ça n'est pas laseule !
44. On pourrait lui demander la réponseà d'autres interrogations: par exemple, si le Pérou
allèguedans son mémoireque la déclarationde Santiago n'étaitpas, au jour de sa conclusion, un
traitérégipar le droit international, comment prétend-ilpar ailleurs que celle-ci est ensuite devenue
61RC, vol. II, annexe 14, p. 81.
62
CMC, vol. II, annexe 35, p. 302 (les italiques sont de nous).
63RC, vol. II, annexe 18, p. 100 (les italiques sont de nous). - 34-
64
un «traité» ? Par la ratification, nous dit Je Pérou. Tiens, tiens, la ratification ? Mais, comment
un pur acte de droit interne, reconnu comme tel par Je demandeur en cette affairé 5, peut-il
transformer la nature juridique initiale d'un instrument qui n'aurait pas étéconçu par ses
cosignataires comme étantun traitéà moins de reconnaître, précisément,qu'il intervient au terme
de la procédure destinée à provoquer, dans l'ordre international, l'entrée en vigueur de cet
instrument conventionneJ 66?
45. Il faut dire qu'à cet égard,j'y ai déjàinsisté,JePéroumanifeste beaucoup d'hésitations.
Il affirme que la déclaration n'est pas devenue un «traité» au sens du droit international, mais
-nous dit-il- un traité«in domestic political tenns». Voilà qui est trèsnouveau et imaginatif!
<«<Ratification»by Congress may have given the Declaration of Santiago «the
status of a treaty in domestic political tenns». But such domestic approval did not, in
and of itself, directly affect the status of the instrument as a matter of international
67
law.»
46. A l'appui d'une si étrangeproposition, JePéroune se risque au demeurant à citer aucune
jurisprudence, ni aucune pratique. A supposer que la déclaration de Santiago soit bien un traité
«in domestic political terms», pourquoi figure-t-elle alors dans Je Recueil des traités des
Nations Unies? Alors Je Pérou répond-nous l'avons vu que la déclaration «came to be
68
treated as a treaty» , ce qui n'est décidémentpas très rigoureux, car si elle a ététraitéecomme un
traité, c'est tout simplement qu'elle en étaitun ! Enfin, si le Pérouallègue que la déclaration de
Santiago ne répondà aucune des exigences de formalités qu'il croit requises, il reconnaît tout de
mêmeque «the form of an instrument is not in itselfconclusive» 69•
...4.7:DécidémenÇMonsieur~Ie~Pfésiâeift~-jern:e~snis:âemanâés'ilexisteraifàprésenfùrie:sorte=
----···---------··---------··-----------------·-
·-··-····------···------·····
·······
d'école surréaliste du droit international peuplée de traités dans l'ordre interne mais pas
international comme il existe des montres molles dans les tableaux de Salvador Dali? C'est là
l'ultime interrogation qui clôturera cette plaidoirie. Je vous remercie pour votre patience et votre
64
MP, par. 4.70.
65
RP, par. 3.161: «the three participating States submitted the Declaration to their respective Congresses for
domestic ratification>>.(Les italiques sont de nous.)
66
CMC, par. 2.63.
67
RP, par. 3.161.
68Ibid., par. 3.144.
69Ibid., par. 3.153 et note de bas de page n°291. - 35-
attention et je vous demande, Monsieur le président, de bien vouloir passer la parole à
M. David Colson.
The PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Now I give the floor to
Mr. David Colson. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. COLSON: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Court. It is an honour to be here
before the Court today on behalf of the Republic of Chile.
1. The technique of trace parallel
1.1. On several occasions earlier this week, particularly in the presentations by
Professor Lowe and Sir Michael Wood, the technical methodology for determining the outer limit
of a distance-based zone, and its relationship to the outer limit of such a zone was, to be generons,
incomplete. Before Chile asks you to cali upon Professor Crawford to elaborate upon the
delimitation agreement of the Parties, it seems important to clarizy two points about the trace
paraliel method: how it works, and why it is important to understand it in this case. I will speak
about Peru's arguments tomorrow about the arcs-of-circles method, but for now, with your
indulgence, we will make a very short presentation about the trace paraliel method. We do so with
respect: we have no intention of lecturing the Court on this point.
1.2. Chile explored this subject in detail in an appendix to its Rejoinder, as an annex to its
70 71
Rejoinder , and Sir Michael Wood referred to that document as "learned" , but he went on then to
say it was partial, apparently because the appendix did not address developments subsequent to
1952. However, the purpose ofthe appendix was simply to explore this question as it stood on the
date of the Santiago Declaration.
1.3. On the screen is a drawing of a simple coastline. Imagine that the coastal State claims a
200-nautical-mile zone and uses the trace paraliel technique to determine the outer limit. The outer
limit will be the blue line; it perfectly replicates ali the contours of the coastline- in this case
200 nautical miles seaward of the coastline.
70See RC, App. A.
71
CR 2012/27, p. 66, para. 33 (Wood). -36-
1.4. Aside from the tracing of the coastline, there is one other thing that needs to be said
about the trace parallel technique. On the diagram, one sees that the coastline runs vertically, and
that the 200-nautical-mile outer limit also runs perfectly parallel to it and on the same vertical
plane. This seems obvious, but there is something important that has not been said. The way the
outer limit is traced, so as to run parallel to the coastline, is done by lines of reference, or as
Sir Michael Wood called them "geometrie construction lines" 72,and which we now show. In this
diagram, the lines of reference, or to use his phrase- the geometrie construction lines run as
horizontallines to the vertical, or perpendicular, ifyou wish, to the vertical coastline shown on the
diagram. However, if the geometrie construction lines had a different geometrie basis, for instance
15° south of the horizontal, the outer limit would still be a perfect tracing of the coastline, it would
stillbe determined by the tracing of a parallel line to the coastline, but it would be offset by
15° southward relative to the coastline. The point is that the orientation of the geometrie
construction lines relative to the coastlineisthe key factor in the trace parallel technique.
1.5. How would this work if State A and State B shared the coast as now shown on the
diagram, and both used trace parallel to determine the outer limit and used lines running horizontal
to the vertical as the geometrie construction lines? The zone of State A is now shown in purple.
Now the zone of State Bis shown in green. We can see that the zones do not overlap; they abut on
a line corresponding to where the land boundary meets the coast shown in red; the outer limits of
the two zones as determined by the trace parallel technique meet perfectly; and if State A were to
expand its claim, the zone of State A would extend seaward and not infringe on maritime areas
·~~~~------s.eaward~ofJhezone~ofState.B._~~~----~~~--~
1.6. But what if both States use trace parallel, but the geometrie construction lines used are
different? Imagine that State A uses geometrie construction lines that are offset 15° southward
relative to the vertical, but StateB's geometrie construction lines are horizontallines. The zone of
State A would be as shown. There would be an obvious overlap with the zone of State B. The
overlapping area would only grow with expanded claims. The Court can imagine the attendant
consequences that would arise in such a situation. Thus we can conclude that, if the geometrie
7CR 2012/27, p.64,para.27 (Wood). -37-
construction lines used by two neighbouring States are the same, and the application of the trace
parallel method and the breadth oftheir zones is the same, there is not going to be a problem; if the
geometrie construction lines are different, there will be73•
2. The use of trace parallel by Pero and Chile
74
2.1. Peru admits at paragraphs 3.31 and following of the Reply, and Professor Lowe and
Sir Michael Wood 75confirmed earlier this week, that in 1947 Peru used trace parallel to determine
the outer limit of its claim and that it used the geographie parallel as the geometrie construction
lines. Since bath Chile and Peru as neighbouring States proceeded on the same basis and used the
same geometrie construction lines- that is parallels of latitude- to apply the trace parallel
technique to determine the outer limit oftheir zones, this had four important consequences:
(i) First, it was not possible for there to be any overlap between Chile and Peru's
200-nautical-mile zones as then claimed.
(ii) Second, the respective zones abutted along the parallel of latitude of the land boundary
terminus- in other words the geographie limit between the 200-nautical-mile zones of
Chile and Peru was the latitude of the land boundary terminus.
(iii) Third, the outer limits of bath Chile and Peru's zones were aligned and they met at sea,
200 nautical miles from the land boundary terminus and on its parallel.
(iv) Fourth, it also meant that if either Chile or Peru, or bath, extended their zone for a distance
greater than 200 nautical miles, as they had reserved the right to do in their
1947 proclamations, those extended zones would be directed seaward and would not
extend onto the other side of the land boundary parallel terminus.
Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Court. I thank you for your attention. I ask that
you cali upon Professor Crawford to begin his presentation.
7This demonstration may be found at tab 38 of the judges' folders.
74
See CR 2012/28, p. 13, para. 6 (Lowe).
75
See CR 2012/27, p. 64, para. 27 (Wood). -38-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Colson. I think at this moment, both Members of the
Court and members of the teams will enjoy either coffee or tea, so 1declare a pause of 15 minutes.
The sitting is suspended.
The Court adjournedfrom 4.20 to 4.35p.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The hearing is resumed and I give the floor to
Professor Crawford. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. CRAWFORD:
1. Introduction
1.1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you on behalf of
the Republic of Chile. Peru instituted these proceedings to ask you to delimit its maritime
boundary with Chile. But theres a problem with that request, for Peru and Chile already have a
maritime boundary. They delimited it by agreementn the Santiago Declaration and on varions
subsequent occasions they jointly acknowledged that they had done so.
1.2. As we have seen,eru's case that the Santiago Declaration is not a treaty at ali has
largely fallen by the wayside, and ali the emphasis this week has been placed on its second line
attack-that the Declaration did not determine a boundary. As Professor Lowe put iton Tuesday,
76
"Nothing in the Declaration refers to maritime boundariesNothing, nothing. In so far as
anyone from Peru's team could steel themselves to refer to the 1954 Agreement Relating to a
--------~-~- _-a~r-Stpi_ee_cEiralntier~.Zone,_the_title_of.~whiclL_does_..· r·a-th-er~
downgrade it to "a practical arrangement, of a technical nature, and of Îimited geographical
scope"7• It is true, it was limited, it was thefrontier zoneBut according to Peru there is
no frontier zone because there is no frontier. So much for the title and content oftreaties!
1.3. note in passing that, in its written pleadings, Peru also had a third line of argument,
which is that,there was an agreed delimitation in 1952, it concerned Peru and Ecuador only. We
76
CR 2012/2p.23para53 (Lowe).
17/bid., p. 29, (Wood).l - 39-
have beard no more on that, and as I take you to the key agreements, you will readily see why. So,
from three arguments we are down to one.
1.4. The simple point I will be making here is that there was indeed an agreement on
delimitation in 1952, that agreement falls to be respected, as the parties intended at the time, and as
78
today follows both as a matter of customary international law , and also pursuant to the 1982
Convention.
1.5. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I am afraid that this is going to be a plodding,
mechanical sort of exercise, going through the treaties and minutes in a chronological fashion, if
fashion is the right word for this sort of lawyering. I can only apologize for my pedantry in
insisting on the texts and try and help y ou through the documentation in an orderly way. In the
binder before you, you will see that we have included the core texts, which I will be taking you to
consecutively- unlike Peru we do not read history backwards. I have deliberately asked for
complete translations of key documents to be before you, as this is a case that will turn on the
careful study of a relatively small core of documents, the Court is not going to be greatly assisted
by a series of short extracts being flashed up, flashily, on the screen. So, have you your dossiers in
front of you?
2. The 1947 proclamations
2.1. I start by way of important background with the unilateral Proclamations of 1947.
2.2. The first of these two was issued in June 1947 by the President of Chile. The second
was issued a month later, jointly by the President and Foreign Minister of Peru. Each State's
proclamation declared that State's "sovereignty" over the sea and continental shelf within
200 nautical miles.
2.3. Chile's 1947 Proclamation is at tab 1 of your folders. I will be referring to page
numbers in bold at the foot of each page, which have been superimposed over the originals.
18
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19November 2012, paras. 137-139. -40-
2.4. You will see that in the highlighted text on page 6 Chile "proclaims its national
79
sovereignty over ali the continental shelf' • In Article 2 Chile "proclaims its national sovereignty
80
over the seas adjacent to its coasts" •
2.5. Chile reserved the right to alter in the future the area over which this proclamation was
to have effect. But in Article 3, ChUe declared its maritime zone to be established "immediately
over ali the seas contained within the perimeter formed by the coast and the mathematical paraliel
81
projected into the sea at a distance of 200 nautical miles from the coasts of Chilean territory" • It
is clear from the context that "mathematical paraliel" was another way of saying tracéparallèle,
and that Chile conceived its maritime zone as having a "perimeter", as befits a zone of sovereignty.
2.6. On Monday, Sir Michael Wood wished to explore the domestic legal status of Chile's
82
1947 Declaration • There is no need to spend time on that point because ali that matters is that it
was an international claim, with immediate international effect and was understood internationaliy
as such. Chile's Ambassador in Lima accordingly informed Peru's Foreign Minister,
83
Dr. Garcia Sayan, ofChile's Declaration •
2.7. Peru issued its own unilateral proclamation just one week later, and also acknowledged
receipt ofChile's Declaration 84•
2.8. We now move to tab 2 of your binders, where you find Peru's 1947 declaration. As
85
Chile had just done, in Article 1 Peru declared "national sovereignty and jurisdiction" over the
continental shelf. ln Article 2 Peru proclaimed that: "National sovereignty and jurisdiction are
exercised as weil over the sea adjoining the shores of national territory." 86 Again following Chile,
time, Peru actually claimed- and you will see this highlighted at the top of page 5 - "the area
covered between the coast and an imaginary paraliel line to it at a distance of two hundred (200)
79
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 27; p. 136,Art. 1.
80
/bid.,Art. 2.
81
/bid.,Art. 3.
82
CR 2012/27, p. 62, para. 16(Wood).
8CMC, Vol. III,Ann. 52.
8/bid., Ann. 54.
8MP, Vol. Il, Ann. 6, p. 26, Art. 1.
8/bid., Art. 2. -41-
87
nautical miles measured following the line of the geographie parallels" • Those last eight words
are particularly relevant: "measured following the line of the geographie parallels".
2.9. Peru's declared method of projection determined both the outer limit and the lateral
limits of its maritime zone. Indeed, the Parties agree about how this method of projection worked.
Peru's Memorial explains that
"at each point on the coast aline 200-mile[s] long would be drawn seaward along the
geographical line of latitude, so that there would be a 'mirror' coastline parallel to the
real coastline - the real coastline would in effect be transposed 200 miles offshore
and form the outer edge of the 200-mile zone" 8•
2.10. Peru's Supreme Decree declared sovereignty over the area "covered between" the
coast and that imaginary line. Peru specified how the imaginary line was projected from the coast.
Each point was projected 200 miles to sea along the geographie parallel on which it lay.
2.11. Obviously the southernmost point on Peru's coastline is the point at which its land
boundary with Chile reaches the sea. Peru's 1947 Decree used a method of projection by which the
parallel of latitude passing through that point and running out 200 nautical miles to sea constituted
the southern limit ofPeru's maritime projection.
2.12. As you see from its conclusion, Peru's 1947 Supreme Decree was issued by President
Bustamante y Rivero, a man who needs no introduction before this Court over which he presided,
and by its Foreign Minister Garcia Sayân. Just a week earlier the latter bad received notification of
the equivalent proclamation of Chile.
2.13. With this clearly identified method of projection- "measured following the line of the
geographie parallels"- Peru's Ambassador to Chile delivered the Supreme Decree to the Chilean
Minister of Foreign Affairs. Chile acknowledged receipt 89•
2.14. Just as Peru had made no objection to Chile's Presidential Proclamation, Chile made no
objection to Peru's method of projection or any other aspect ofits Decree.
87
MP, Vol. II Ann. 6,p.27, Art. 3.
88
MP, para. 4.58.
8CMC, Vol. III, Ann. 55. -42-
2.15. On Monday, Sir Michael raised the question whether the unilateral proclamations
90
created international obligations. That question is beside the point. They are relevant because
they were international claims.
2.16. The method of maritime projection used by the two States in 1947 created a situation in
which the maritime zones claimed by Chile and Peru abutted perfectly. There was no overlap
between them. The line at which they abutted was the parallelof latitude of the point where their
land boundary reached the sea. You can see this now on the screens.
(a) In the first frame there is the Peruvian coast accompanied by the northernmost and
southernmost parallelsof latitude that pass through it.
(b) In the next frame each point on the Peruvian coast is marked, and of course that results in the
solid blue line along the Peruvian coastline.
(c) Then, in the next frame each point on the coastline is projected 200 miles to sea along the
parallelof latitude. The outer limit is the "imaginary parallel line" specified in Article 3 of
Peru's Supreme Decree.
(d) The next frame shows that the method of projection used to create the outer limits also created
the northern and southern lateral limitsthe zone. These are the !ines marked in red.
(e) The final frame, tab 40, adds the tracéparallèle of Chile's coast, Chile having also used that
method for the outer limitf its maritime zone in Article 3 of its Declaration.
2.17. On Monday, Sir Michael stressed that this Peruvian Presidential Decree did not create a
maritime boundary 91• That is correct, but it also misses the point. The method of projection used
in1h_e__Supr.~m~_J)~ç J.l._~_u_simepy_an.tdJhaaime_claim_s _outh_oLthe ...aralleLoL _____ ---------·
latitude of the point where its land boundary reached the sea.
2.18. The unilateral proclamations of 1947 meant that boundary delimitation between the
two was uncontroversial in 1952. It is not possible to imagine circumstances in which boundary
delimitation could be Jess controversial than where the maritime zones claimed by two adjacent
States abut perfectly and do notoverlap- a situation that the Court would no doubt like to see
more of.
9
°CR 2012/27pp.59-60,paraIl (Wood).
91
/bide.g.p64,para.27 (Wood). - 43-
2.19. The position was also straightforward at the northern extremity of Peru's maritime
zone, where it met Ecuador's. At tab 20 you will see a diplomatie memorandum of 1969 from
Argentina asking Ecuador to inform it of"the antecedents that served as the basis for the countries
of the South Pacifie to adopt, in demarcating their respective territorial seas, the geographie
parallels as boundary lines" 92•
2.20. In tab 21, you will see the reply ofEcuador's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Argentina.
This referred to Peru's unilateral proclamation of 1947 as one of the "antecedents" of the
boundaries in the region. Ecuador recalled that Penl's proclamation identified an outer limit
"following the line of the geographie parallels". Ecuador explained the use of geographie parallels
as follows: "for each point of the coast, starting at that at which the northern frontier of Peru
reaches the sea and ending at that at which its southern frontier reaches the sea, corresponds
another one located on the same latitude at two hundred miles from the coast" 93• This is precisely
what you have seen in illustrated form and precisely the same as the explanation given by Peru in
94
its Memorial . Peru, Chile and Ecuador ali agreed on how this method worked- and nothing you
have heard from Peru this week contradicts that.
2.21. In its response to Argentina, Ecuador indicated that it bad "concurred in the adoption of
such criterion" in "the conventions ofthe South Pacific" 95• The conventions ofthe South Pacifie to
which it referred were the Santiago Declaration and the 1954 Agreements, including the Agreement
Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone. Ecuador observed that this method of delimitation
established, "both the outer maritime limit and the international maritime frontier [as] lines ofeasy
and simple recognition" 96• And yet Professor Lowe says that nothing, nothing in these treaties,
97
"refers to maritime boundaries" •
2.22. Peru now contends that the parallel of latitude was used only as a fisheries limit and
only close to the shore because it was easy for artisanal fishermen with limited navigational
92
RC, Vol. II, Ann. 21,p.113.
93
!bid.,Ann. 22, p.117.
94MP, para4.58.
95RC, Vol. II, Ann. 22,p.117.
96!bid., pp.117 and 119.
97CR 2012/28, p.23, para.53 (Lowe). - 44-
abilities to locate such a simple boundary. But it is obvious that in 1947 the use of parallels of
latitude as tines in the sea had nothing to do with itinerant, artisanal fishermen. It concerned
sovereignty to 200 nautical miles projected along parallels of latitude.
2.23. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the unilateral claims of sovereignty that Chile
and Peru made in 1947 were concordant. Bach State communicated its claim to the other. Neither
objected to the other's claim. These unilateral claims to sovereignty were then agreed, and
delimited, in the Santiago Declaration of 1952.
3. The 1952 Santiago Declaration
3.1. You will find the Santiago Declaration attab 5.
3.2. The first relevant provision is Article II, at page 5. In it, the tl1reeStates agreed amongst
themselves 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" 98• The parties agreed that each of them possessed exclusive sovereignty over those zones.
3.3. In Article III, the parties agreed that their "exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over
this maritime zone shall also encompass exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea-bed
99
and the subsoil thereof'' - not a provision you would expect in an agreement dealing with
fisheries. The parties agreed between themselves, and asserted against the rest of the world, that
each of them had a comprehensive as well as "exclusive" maritime entitlement.
3.4. The comprehensive character of these maritime claims makes it abundantly clear that
hesitant and provisional- tine for limited functional purposes is untrue. They were aware of the
magnitude of what they were doing, and that it would arouse opposition. But that only emphasized
the importance of presenting a united front. In Articles II and III of the Declaration, the parties
made plenary claims of sovereignty and jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles from their coasts. And
they meant it, as witness Peru's arrests of the Onassis whaling tleet 110 miles offshore in 1954 10•
This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to protect their offshore fisheries and whaleries- I am
98MP, Vol. II, Ann. 4p. 261, Art. II.
99
/bid.Art. III.
10
°CR 2012/28, p. 35, para. 38 (Wood); CMC, Vol. IV, Ann. 163, p. 983. -45-
told that "whalery" is not a word, but it is now- from a post-War resurgence of powerful distant
water fishing interests. And they did it, not by making, à la Trèves,diffident diplomatie démarches
but by asserting zones of exclusive sovereignty with perimeters.
3.5. I should add that Professor Lowe's attempts to play down the importance of the
Declaration is not only belied by its objects and by the contemporaneous events, but also by the
way the three States themselves saw matters, as witnessed not least by their joint affirmation at the
closure of the Third Law of the Sea Conference, to which Professor Treves helpfully took you on
101
Tuesday • There, together with Colombia, they stated their wish- and 1quote
"to point out that 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 Pacifie, in accordance with the basic objectives stated in the Santiago
Declaration of 1952" 102•
And, in a passage you were not taken to, the affirmation continues to describe how the Permanent
Commission "has the merit of having been the first to denounce the unjust practices existing in the
maritime spaces and of having proposed appropriate legal solutions, thereby contributing to the
103
development of the new law of the sea" . In Professor Lowe's eyes, the 1952 Conference may
have had no more than a "limited, scientific purpose" 104,but that is not how the States that actually
participated saw matters.
3.6. Chile agrees entirely that whales and fish were the most important resources at the time
of the Declaration. Fisheries still are vital. But the regulatory authority that the three States
exerted over those resources was only one attribute of the sovereignty they claimed, and claimed
out to 200 miles.
3.7. On Monday, Peru relied on its Petroleum Law promulgated in March 1952 to assert that
by the time of the Santiago Declaration it was using a different method of maritime projection from
105
the one it used in 1947 • David Colson will come back to that in due course; for the moment 1
just want to make the simple point that, through its Petroleum Law, Peru exercisedjurisdiction over
10eR 2012/28, p. 47, para. 9 (Treves).
102
MP, Vol. III, Ann. 108, p. 632.
103/bid.
104
eR 2012/28, p. 18, para. 32 (Lowe).
10eR 2012/27, pp. 65-67, paras. 30-34 (Wood). -46-
ali hydrocarbons in its continental shelf to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the coast. And
now, Peru asks the Court to find that, five months later, its international maritime claim was
concerned "only" with fish and whales.
3.8. In short, in Articles II and III of the Declaration, the parties were acting together to give
multilateral support to the comprehensive maritime claims they had each already each made
unilaterally in 1947.
3.9. In Article IV of the Declaration, the parties delimited these comprehensive claims. Of
course, you have beard many times this week- the chorus of counsel opposite- that the Article
is only about islands but, on the correct interpretation, a boundary was agreed in Article IV and
this, as you see from the last highlighted passage on page 5 oftab 5, was "the parallel at the point at
which the land frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea". Professor Lowe read Article IV
and 1will not read it again, but 1will analyse it 106•
3.10. Article IV refers to the maritime zone generated by the frontal projection of a State's
continental coast as its "general" maritime zone. That is a zone of sovereignty, not a figment of
construction lines. It has a perimeter. As we know from the exchange of unilateral proclamations,
there is no overlap between the general maritime zones produced by the frontal projection of the
continental coastlines of Chile and Peru.
3.11. In the first sentence of Article IV the three States agreed that ali of their islands
enjoyed a 200-nautical-mile radial projection. That created overlap between the "general"
maritime zone resulting from the frontal projection of the continental coastline and the radial
·---------~----------·~------ -------""""""""""------------------··----------~-··----.--------~--------------·--·---------~---------------·----~---------_.___________----~~---
·····--·----------··p.r.pj.e.cJipn_ofan_ yi_sland..belonging.Jo.an.adjacenLStateJhatJay_withiiL200_nauticaLmiles_oLthat _______ .___ _
general maritime zone.
3.12. That brings us to the second sentence of Article IV, which requires the parties to be
able to determine if an island "is situated Jess than 200 nautical miles from the general maritime
zone belonging to another ofthose countries".
3.13. Peru's present position- that the general maritime zones have never been
delimited - would deprive the second sentence of Article IV of any meaning or effect.
106
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 47, Art. IV, p. 261. -47-
Professor Lowe acknowledged on Tuesday that Article IV applies to islands "situated Jess than
107
200 nautical miles from the general maritime zone belonging to another ofthose countries" • He
added that: "Ifthat situation occurs", then the insular zone shaH be limited by the para11el 10• But
if the general zones are not delimited, then it would be impossible to know "if that situation
occurs". It would be impossible to know if an island is within 200 nautical miles of the general
maritime zone of the neighbouring State.
3.14. Under Peru's interpretation, Article IV would therefore not apply to any island at ali.
But of course treaty provisions must be given effect. That is part of the principle of effectiveness
109
you articulated in the Libya/Chad case . Since the meaning that Peru proposes would deprive the
second sentence of Article IV of any effect at ali, the principle of effective interpretation precludes
it.
3.15. The ordinary meaning of Article IV, interpreted in good faith and by reference toits
context, does grant it an effect. It was possible to know if an island was within 200 miles of an
adjacent State's general maritime zone, because the general maritime zones of each pair of adjacent
States were delimited by "the para1lelat the point at which the land frontier of the States concerned
reaches the sea".
3.16. How issues of overlap between the insular maritime zones and the general maritime
zones of the adjacent State was resolved is quite simple. The parties agreed on the lateral
delimitation of their general maritime zones. This was an agreement easily reached because- at
)east as between Chile and Peru- of the events of 1947. The delimitation in 1952 did not depend
on the presence of islands that followed "the para11elat the point at which the land frontier of the
States concerned reaches the sea". Those words came last in the text of Article IV, but as a matter
of logic the maritime boundary that they created came first.
3.17. If an island was not within 200 nautical miles of the maritime boundary, it would have
a full200-nautical-mile radial projection. That is the effect of the first sentence of Article IV. If it
10CR 2012/28,p. 14,para. 13(Lowe).
108Jbid.
109
Territorial Dispute (LibyanArabJamahiriya/Chad)Judgment, J.C.J. Report1994, pp. 23-24, para.47. -48-
was within 200 nautical miles of the general maritime boundary, then its radial projection was
truncated by that boundary. That is the effect of the second sentence of Article IV.
3.18. lnsular projections needed special attention, because it was only they that created the
overlap. But the attention that they received was that they were truncated by the same maritime
boundary that was agreed to apply as between the general maritime zones of adjacent States. With
the benefit of hindsight no doubt it could have been better formulated. But the intention of the
parties is evident, and that is what matters.
3.19. An illustration using actual islands within 200 nautical miles of the Peru-Chile
maritime boundary demonstrates how this works.
(a) The first frame is our canvas, showing the maritime boundary.
(b) Isla Blanca is a Peruvian island, not a rock, as Professor Lowe anachronistically likes to portray
it110; it bas a surface area of 15 hectares. It is within 200 nautical miles of Peru's maritime
boundary with Chile.
(c) If it bad a full 200-nautical-mile radial projection, its maritime zone would look Iike this.
(d) The effect of the second sentence of Article IV is that the insular maritime zone is truncated at
the maritime boundary, and so actually looks Iikethis, a maritime boundary which is apparent!y
non-existent.
(e) The same applies to the Chilean island of Alacran, which is 8 hectares in area, off the coast of
Arica, less than 8 nautical miles from the maritime boundary.
(/) The first sentence of Article IV would give it a radial projection Iike this.
maritime boundary- according to Peru non-existent- Iike this. Today Alacran is now
joined by causeway to the city of Arica, but there was no causeway in 1952, nor in 1968 when
Peru depicted it as an island on the official Peruvian nautical chart of which you can see an
extract in this diagram. The "l" stands for Isla, there is no "F" for Feature, as Professor Lowe
would have us believe 111. Peru labelled this Isla Alacran.
11
°CR 2012/28, pp. 21-22, para. 47 (Lowe).
111
/bid.,paras. 48 and 49 (Lowe). -49-
112
3.20. Peru said on Monday , as it has said in its written pleadings, that Article IV applies
only to Peru and Ecuador because of the presence of islands. But, as you have seen, there are also
islands in the vicinity ofthe Chile-Peru maritime boundary. They are shown on historical Peruvian
charts. But they are not acknowledged in any ofPeru's written pleadings.
3.21. The presence of islands is in any event not the important point. The important point is
that ali maritime zones, general and insular, are delimited by the parallel of latitude at the point
where the land frontier reaches the sea. That is the complete meaning of the second sentence of
Article IV.
3.22. President Jiménez de Aréchaga- who was not nothing in international law-
discussed the Santiago Declaration when he wrote the section on the Chile-Peru maritime boundary
in Charney and Alexander's reference work International Maritime Boundaries (tab 25). He
summarized the effects- this is in tab 25 of Article IV- as being "the general maritime zone of
their countries shaH be bounded by the parallel of latitude drawn from the point where the land
frontier between the respective countries reaches the sea" 113•
3.23. Referring to Articles II and III, he characterized the boundary established in Article IV
114
as "an all-purpose delimitation line" •
3.24. He went on to remark, it is true, that there "is sorne ambiguity in the wording of
Article IV" because ofthe focus on the maritime zones of islands, and he concluded as follows:
"That the maritime boundary is, in fact, constituted by a parallel of latitude from
the mainland was corifirmed [1stress, confirmed] by the parties in an agreement signed
on 4 December 1954." 115
1will come to that 1954 Agreement shortly.
3.25. On the next page you can see that President Jiménezde Aréchagalinked the maritime
delimitation using the parallel of latitude to the method of maritime projection used by the States
concerned. This is on page 3. It was the logical corollary of "the direct and linear projection of
116
their land boundaries and land territories into the adjacent seas" •
112
CR2012/27,p.l9,para.II(Wagner).
11CMC, Vol. V, Ann. 280, p. 1654.
114/bid.
11/bid.; emphasis added.
11/bid., p. 1655. -50-
3.26. The ordinary meaning of Article IV, as 1 have analysed it, is also confirmed by
reference to the Minutes of the Commission that drafted it. As part of the inter-State conference
that 111etin Santiago in August 1952, there was a Legal Affairs Commission. It was in that
Commission that the Declaration was drafted. The frrst draft was presented by
Mr. Cruz Ocampom, Director ofthe Legal Office ofthe Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3.27. The Commission met twice, on 11 and 12 August 1952. The Minutes, Acta in the
original Spanish, were not merely preparatory works of the kind to which reference is optional
under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention. They recorded agreements relating to the
interpretationof the Santiago Declaration made in connection with its conclusion. Recourse to
them as part of the context is mandatory under Article 31 (2) (a) of the Vienna Convention.
3.28. The Minutes of the first day are set out at tab 3. There is the text of the draft
declaration as originally proposed.
3.29. That had three sentences- it was at the time, Article III.
3.30. The first, reproduced the tracéparallèle method of maritime projection used by both
Statesin 1947. It said:
"The zone indicated comprises ali 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." 118
1stress the words "mathematical parallel".
3.31. The second sentence is the same as what ultimately became the first sentence of
Article IV. It said:
--------~---~---------~----~----"-In-the-case-of-island~territories,-the-zone-of-200-nautical-miles~will-apply--aH--~--------~-~----
around the island or group of islands."
3.32. The third sentence is the one from which the second sentence of Article IV, as finally
agreed, was developed:
"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
11MP, Vol. II, Ann. p.318.
118/bid. -51 -
shall be limited, in the corresponding part, to the distance that separates it from the
maritime zone of the other State or country."
3.33. This draft text was not a model of clarity, but it did proceed, like the final text of
Article IV, on the basis that the limits of the general maritime zone of each country were known,
and that the radial projection of any island of an adjacent State would stop when it reached that
general maritime zone.
3.34. The Ecuadorean delegate suggested that, and you see these words highlighted on the
next page, "it would be advisable to provide more clarity to article 3, in order to avoid any error in
119
the interpretation of the interference zone in the case of islands" •
3.35. Professor Lowe said "The purpose behind the redrafted point IV was 'to prevent any
misinterpretation of the interference zone in the case of islands'. Full stop!" 120 Actually, points of
punctuation are important and it is not a full stop, it is a comma: and after the comma cornes an
important passage in which the Ecuadorean delegate, Mr. Fernandez "suggested that the declaration
be drafted on the basis 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"l21. Sorne full stop!
3.36. The translation submitted by Peru as Annex 56 to its Memorial did not include what
happened next, but you will see it highlighted in the Spanish original and in the new translation
which is at tab 3. The Minutes record that: "Ali the delegates were in agreement with that
122
proposition."
3.37. Thus, ali three States agreed with the proposition that the Santiago 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
123
sea" • How this translates into Professor Lowe's "not the faintest hint of any concern with
124
international maritime boundaries" is, to me at !east, something of a puzzle.
119MP, Vol. II, Ann. 56, p. 320.
12eR 2012/28, p. 20, para. 40 (Lowe).
121MP, Vol. II, Ann. 56, p. 320, emphasis added.
122
/bid,p. 319.
123
Ibid, p. 320.
12eR 2012/28, p. 19, para. 35 (Lowe). -52-
3.38. The Minutes also record that Chile and Peru agreed with Ecuador's proposai and that
the President of the Legal Affairs Commission, Peru's delegate, assigned the task of redrafting the
125
article to himselfand Mr. Cruz Ocampo ofChile •
3.39. Now turn to the Minutes of the next day, which is tab 4: you see on page 5 the words
that they added at the end of the last sentence of what became Article IV. Those words are "the
126
parallel at the point at which the land frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea" •
3.40. That is what in the Minutes ofthe previous day had been agreed by ali three States to
constitute "the boundary Iine of the jurisdictional zone of each country" 127, "on the basis" 128of
which the Declaration was to be drafted.
3.41. On that basis ali three States- acting in plenary- signed the Declaration. The
Minutes confirm that the added phrase implemented their common intent to delimit the maritime
boundaries in the way specified.
3.42. Throughout the written pleadings Peru ignored the agreement between the parties
recorded in the 1952 Minutes. Silence was its tactic faced with this contemporaneous evidence of
the agreed basis on which Article IV was drafted. That was also its tactic this week, and I would
invite the Court to look back at tab 29 in Peru's second judges' folder, and see how the key
wording is omitted from the translation there.
3.43. What you did hear much from Peru on Tuesday morning were about the invitations to
the 1952 Conference and about its agenda. 1have five brief observations to make on those topics.
3.44. First, Chile's invitation to Peru specifically suggested that each participating country
agreements to be reached at the Conference would very probably have on matters of the kind
covered in the declarations of 194i 29• So internationallawyers were required.
3.45. Second, Chile's invitation to Peru identified defence of the fishing industries and
concern about international regulation of whaling as motives for the conference. But they were not
125
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 56p. 319.
126
CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 34,p.293.
127
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 56p. 320.
128/bid.
12/bid., Vol. III, Ann. p.382. -53-
just gathering to talk about fish and whales. They were to study "the measures that should be
adopted" 13• That is why internationallawyers were invited. We are operational.
3.46. Third, on Tuesday Peru sought to make something of the fact that the invitations to
Peru and Ecuador were different. But Ecuador bad not made a unilateral proclamation in 1947, and
that was no doubt why the invitation sent to it was more detailed. It listed "Territorial Sea" as an
agenda item. It referred to the "legalization of the declarations of the Presidents of Chile and Peru
131
with respect to sovereignty over 200 miles of continental waters" • Ecuador was being invited to
join Peru and Chile to provide multilateral support, not by way of moral support or diplomatie
support, but by way of legalization to the unilateral claims that Chile and Peru had already made.
And the invitation to Ecuador specifically stated "the determination of the Territorial Sea is set out
132
as one of the objectives of the meeting" • Determination means delimitation. Itwas also used by
Chile and Peru, for example, in Article 3 of the Treaty of Lima by which they delimited their land
boundary 133•
3.47. Fourth, agendas and invitations are in any event of very limited relevance. What
matters is what the States agreed when they met, and they agreed on boundary delimitation. The
Court will no doubt have in its mind your predecessor's Advisory Opinion on Employment of
134
Women during the Night ,which unfortunately 1do not have time to analyse, but the reference is
in the transcript. Much more important than what any invitations did or did not say is what
happened afler the Conference- including the fact that after the delegates of the three States had
signed the Declaration, ali three Congresses later approved it. An unusual thing to do for a merely
scientific conclave.
3.48. ln a related line of argument, Peru contends that the Parties 60 years ago were "feeling
their way in uncertain, uncharted waters ... " 135 -this is sorne more diffidence. Much ofwhat we
13MP, Vol. III, Ann. 64, p. 382.
13CMC, Vol. III, Ann. 59, p. 487; emphasis added.
13/bid., pp. 484 and 485.
13MP, Vol. II, Ann. 45, pp. 228 and 236.
134
/nterpretation of the Convention of 1919 concerning Employment of Women during the Night, Advisory
Opinion, 1932, P.C.l.J. Series A/B, No. 50, pp. 369, 376; and cf the dissent of Baron Rotin- Jaequemyns, Count
Rostworowski, Judges Fromageot and Schücking, ibid.p. 382.
13PR, para. 4.7. -54-
beard at the beginning of the week was that they were not even thinking about maritime boundaries
and so could not have delimited theirs by agreement. This is an attempt retrospectively to impute
ignorance to people who knew what they were doing, and it is inconsistent not only with the text of
the Declaration and the Minutes, but also with other contemporaneous circumstances.
3.49. First, the Truman Proclamation had already stated that in cases where the United States
shared an entitlement to a continental shelf with an adjacent State, the boundary would be
determined by agreement between the two States 136•
3.50. It bears emphasis that the Truman Proclamation was cited by bath Chile 137and Peru 138
in their respective proclamations of 1947. They can be assumed to have read it.
3.51. By the time ofthe Santiago Declaration, the International Law Commission (ILC) was
already working on the law of the sea, including delimitation. In the ILC Judge Hudson had, in
1950, expressed the view that attempts to find a generally applicable means to delimit overlapping
entitlements should be "set aside" because: "Custom and theory gave no enlightenment on the
subject." He considered that the position was that "the States concerned must come to an
agreement" 13•
3.52. In 1951 the ILC reported to the General Assembly that "boundaries should be fixed by
agreement amongst the States concerned. It is not feasible to lay dawn any general rule which
140
States should follow." Now, of course, the position later evolved, but that is where things stood
in 1952. Indeed, speaking at the Fourth International Conference of the Legal Profession in Madrid
in July 1952- they had conferences on the legal profession in 1952 Gilbert Gidel considered
"La difficultéde poser par avance les règlesadéquatessusceptibles de répondre
à l'extrême diversité des situations de fai141ustifie la solution adoptée par la
[Commission du droit international]."
That is Gidel.
13MP, Vol. III, Ann. 88.
13/bid.,Vol. II, Ann. 27, p. 136, first recital.
13/bid.Ann. 6, p. 26, fifth recital.
139
CMC, Vol. IV, Ann. 229, p. 1361, paras 39 and 42.
140
/bid.Ann. 230, p. 1365.
141
G. Gide!, Le Plateau Continental, Fourth International Conference of the Legal Profession in Madrid, !BA,
July 1952, 1952, p. 17. -55-
3.53. Sir Michael reminded you on Monday that the ILC's Committee of Experts did not
142
convene until1953 • The Committee explained the equidistance methodology. We must not read
that history backwards. In Santiago in 1952, the delegates did not have either the Committee or
Peru's counsel of today to explain to them their ignorance. Nor did they have the benefit of the
judgments of this Court in Romania v. Ukraine. The only articulated rule in 1952 was that States
shall delimit their maritime boundaries by agreement.
3.54. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that is actually still the primary rule: equitable
solutions are not jus cogens, and depending on their situation, States may differ on equity, as the
Court has had recent occasion to observe. Once agreed, it is a matter of "grave importance" that
maritime boundaries be respected. It is not a question of going back 60 years and second guessing
delegates in relation to what were their priorities at the time.
3.55. Conscious of the Truman Proclamation and of the work of the ILC concerning
delimitation of maritime boundaries by agreement, that is precisely what Chile, Pern and Ecuador
did in the Santiago Declaration. It was not nothing!
4. The 1954 complementary Convention
4.1. Under Article VI of the Santiago Declaration, the parties agreed that they would sign
further agreements to establish general norms of regulation and protection within "the maritime
zone belonging to them".
4.2. In October 1954, they held a meeting ofthe Permanent Commission of the South Pacifie
to prepare for that conference in order to reinforce the joint position taken in the Santiago
Declaration.
4.3. It needed reinforcement. The extended maritime claims made trilaterally in the Santiago
143 144
Declaration had been met with protests by maritime powers including the United Kingdom ,
145 146 147 148 149
the United States ,Norway , Sweden , Denmark and the Netherlands •
14CR 2012/27,p. 67, para. 34 (Wood).
14MP, Vol. III,Ann. 98, p. 580.
14CMC, Vol. III,Anns. 60 and68.
14/bid.,Ann. 62.
146
/bid.,Ann. 63.
147
/bid.,Ann. 64. -56-
4.4. The month after the preparatory meeting of the Permanent Commission of the South
Pacifie, the Onassis whaling fleet announced that it was going to flout the claims of sovereignty
made in the Santiago Declaration and it promptly, and very publicly, did so.
4.5. Peru's Navy used force to arrest a number ofOnassis vessels, 110 nautical miles offthe
coast. The Harbour Master of Paita fined them US$3 million 150- a substantial amount in those
days, although these days it is a mere bagatelle - an amount that it is difficult to describe as
151
"tentative". The fine was for "invading Peruvian jurisdictional waters without a permit" • The
Harbour Master relied on the Santiago Declaration and the Supreme Decree as bases for his
152
decision • The Onassis fleet was not arrested for transgressing construction lines!
4.6. At the beginning of the next month, December 1954, the three States met as planned at
their inter-State conference in Lima to reinforce their joint position and agree on further
co-operation. Those were the purposes of the Complementary Convention of 1954, which is at
tab 9. Its full title is the "Complementary Convention to the Declaration of Sovereignty over the
Maritime Zone ofTwo Hundred Miles".
4.7. The first recital, beginning at the foot of page 4- at tab 9 - recalls that the three States
had already "proclaimed their Sovereignty over the sea along the coasts of their respective
countries, up to a minimum distance of two hundred nautical miles from the said coasts, including
153
the corresponding soi! and subsoil of said Maritime Zone" • There are four salient points.
(a) First, and most obviously, the Complementary Convention acknowledged that the three States
had already proclaimed their sovereignty over their maritime zones.
limitation to fisheries. They included the sea, the soi! and the subsoil.
(c) Third, the existing claim applied to the "respective" coast of each country, indicating that each
country claimed its own sovereign maritime zone.
14CMC, Vol. III, Ann. 65.
149
/bid.Ann. 66.
150
/bid.Vol. IV, Ann. 163, p.986.
15/bid., p. 987.
152/bid.
153MP, Vol. II, Ann. 51pp. 282-283, first recital. -57-
(d) Fourth, Article 5 states that aH of the provisions of the Complementary Convention "shaH be
deemed to be an integral and complementary part, and shaH not [derogate from], the resolutions
and agreements adopted" 154in Santiago.
4.8. The Minutes relating to the Complementary Convention are also important, in that they
record an important agreement about why boundary delimitation was not addressed in 1954. These
are the Minutes that Sir Michael introduced on Tuesday, and he took Chile to task for the "very
bold claim"- he might have said "imaginative claim"- that the Minutes show how the delegates
in Commission I understood that an all-purpose maritime boundary had been established by
Article IV of the Santiago Declaration 15•
4.9. You will find the Minutes for 2 December 1954 behind tab 6. They record that
Ecuador's delegate to the 1954 conference, Mr. Salvador Lara, wished to include a provision in the
Complementary Convention repeating what had already been agreed two years earlier in Santiago
on the topic of maritime delimitation- this is page 10 oftab 6. Mr. Salvador Lara:
"move[ d] for the inclusion in this Convention of a complementary article clarifying
the concept of the dividing line of the jurisdictional sea, which has already been
expounded at the Conference of Santiago, but which would not be redundant to repeat
156
herein" •
4.10. The 1954 Minutes record the joint response ofthe Peruvian and Chilean delegates.
4.11. Their joint position was that: "Article 4 of the Declaration of Santiago is already
sufficiently clear and does not require a new exposition." 157
4.12. The Chilean delegate involved was again Mr. Cruz Ocampo. He had drafted Article IV
together with his Peruvian colleague.
4.13. The Ecuadorean delegate at the 1954 conference, who had not been m Santiago,
persisted. The 1954 Minutes record that:
"Since the Delegate of Ecuador insists on his belief that a declaration to that
effect should be included in the Convention, because Article 4 of the Declaration of
Santiago is aimed at establishing the principle of delimitation of waters regarding the
islands, Mr. President asks the Delegate of Ecuador if he would accept, instead of a
15MP, Vol. II, Ann. 51, pp. 283-284, Art. 5.
15CR 2012/28, p. 33, para. 29 (Wood).
156
CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 38, p. 341.
157/bid. -58-
new article, that a record is kept in the Minutes of his speech." 158 [It is something that
Chairmen often do, "we'II put your speech in the minutes and someone will read it one
day".]
4.14. The Ecuadorean delegate was not having any of it. He gave a detailed response:
"The Delegate of Ecuador states that if the other countries consider that no
explicit record is necessary in the Convention, he agrees to record in the Minutes that
the three countries consider the matter on the dividing Iine of the jurisdictional waters
resolved and that said Iine is the parallel starting at the point at which the land frontier
between both countries reaches the sea." 159
4.15. Immediately following this statement, the Peruvian delegate, Naval Commander Llosa,
expressed "his agreement with doing that, but clarifies that this agreement was already established
in the Conference of Santiago as recorded in the relevant Minutes asper the request of the Delegate
160
of Ecuador, Mr. Gonzalez" • In fact, the Ecuadorean delegate in Santiago in 1952 was
Mr. Fernandez, not Mr. Gonzalez- it was he who asked for a clarification of what became
Article IV.
4.16. In 1954, Commander Llosa on behalf of Peru, referred not only to the Santiago
Declaration, but also to the agreement included in the 1952 Minutes. The 1952 Minutes recorded
Mr. Fernandez's suggestion that Article IV should 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
ofthe countries touches or reaches the sea" 161•
4.17. You will also recall that the 1952 Minutes recorded immediately thereafter: "Ail the
162
delegates were in agreement with that proposition."
4.18. In 1954, Peru specifically relied on the 1952 Minutes to deny Ecuador's request for
4.19. Peru said it would be redundant to include an additional article in the Complementary
Convention that would repeat, as Ecuador had wanted, that "the parallel at the point at which the
land frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea" 163 constitutes the dividing line of the
158
CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 38,p.341.
159Jbid.
160
Jbid.p. 342, emphasis added.
16MP, Vol. II, Ann. 56p. 320.
16Ibid., p319.
16Jbid.Ann. 47, p.261, Art. 4. -59-
jurisdictional waters. That is where events were left on 2 December, as the parties headed off for
dinner.
4.20. The Minutes for the following day, 3 December 1954, are to be found at tab 7. The
session began with a reading of the Minutes from the previous day. The Ecuadorean delegate was
evidently not satisfied with what he beard; he stuck to his guns, and you will see the record of his
intervention on page 10:
"Following a reading of the Minutes, the Delegate of Ecuador,
Mr. SALVADOR LARA, requested clarification of the statement made by the
CHAIRMAN conceming the concept of the dividing line, since the CHAIRMAN had
not proposed recording in the Minutes the statement made by the Delegate of Ecuador
but that the three countries had agreed on the concept of a dividing line of the
jurisdictional sea."164
It was not a question simply of recording a statement, it was a question of recording an agreement.
4.21. The Ecuadorean delegate, in other words, insisted that the Minutes should not merely
record the point he had made. He insisted that the Minutes record the agreement between the three
States.
4.22. The Minutes go on to record that: "With this clarification, the CHAIRMAN declared
165
the Minutes of the First Session approved."
4.23. The clarification that was made was "that the three countries had agreed on the concept
of a dividing Iine of the jurisdictional sea"166•
4.24. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this part of the 1954 Minutes appears twice in the
record, Annex 57 to Peru's Memorial, Annex 39 to Chile's Counter-Memorial. I have to say that
you should rely only on Annex 39 to Chile's Counter-Memorial, and you can see on your screen
why this is so.
(a) This first slide shows the first page of the 1954 Minutes as presented by Peru.
(b) On the right-hand side you now see the first page as presented by Chile. The seal appearing in
the top left is that ofthe Peruvian Foreign Ministry, and in the top right ofthe Chilean Embassy
in Peru. Peru's annex does not bear these official seals.
16CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 39p.354.
165/bid.
166/bid. - 60-
(c) A more significant difference is that the Peruvian reproduction is missing the lower part of the
page. You now see on your screens a horizontal red line superimposed across each page. The
content above the line is the same in both annexes, except for the official seals and sorne
typographical errors in the Peruvian annex, it was obviously a draft. Everything appearing
below the line is absent from the annex submitted to the Court by Peru.
(d) Now you see the highlighting over the two relevant paragraphs in the authentic Minutes that are
not in Peru's annex.
(e) We translated them in Annex 39 of the Counter-Memorial, and this last frame shows what they
said.
4.25. The approved Minutes include the words that 1 have emphasized, which you can find
behind tab 42: "the three countries had agreed on the concept of a dividing line of the jurisdictional
sea".
4.26. That juridical fact cannot be changed no matter how enthusiastically one might take
advantage of the delete function in a computer programme.
4.27. The extracts from the 1954 Minutes that we have just seen record discussions leading
to the Complementary Convention, but the content relevant to the present dispute is the part of the
Minutes that constitutes an agreement between the parties about the correct interpretation of the
Santiago Declaration, signed two years earlier. This aspect of the 1954 Minutes records a
"subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation" of the Santiago
Declaration, which "shall" be taken into account in accordance with Article 31 (3) (a) of the
4.28. 1 turn now to another convention signed on the same day as the Complementary
Convention. It is the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone, which is at tab 1O.
5. The 1954 Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone
5.1. The first thing to notice about the Agreement is its title. In the written pleadings Peru
167
abbreviated it to the "Agreement on a Special Zone" • Professor Lowe did likewise, although 1
167
MP, para.2.6; PR, para.2.81. - 61 -
thought I saw him blush 16• The abbreviation, of course, omits two significant words: "Maritime
Frontier". Again Peru seeks to use the delete button instead of argument.
5.2.1will refer to the English translation ofthis agreement, beginning at page 4 oftab 10. It
shows certified corrections to the translation in the United Nations Treaty Series. The first recital
169
refers to "violations of the maritime frontier between adjacent States" • That was not the outer
edge of the zone, it was the lateral frontier.
5.3. This agreement was concluded to create a zone of tolerance for small vessels whose
masters were not very good at knowing where they were. One of the things that the record
discloses is that small boats did not get any better at navigation as time went on. Those vessels had
already violated- and then come the significant words in the recital- "the maritime frontier
between adjacent States".
5.4. On Tuesday, Sir Michael said of this treaty that: "Its limited purpose was to avert
170
disputes involving artisanal fishermen on small vessels fishing near to the coast." This was not a
171
treaty "dealing in any sense with political matters" •
5.5. But the true position is in the penultimate recital. The point of granting small vessels the
benefit of a zone of tolerance was to avoid "friction between the countries concerned, which may
affect adversely the spirit of co-operation and unity which should at ali times prevail among the
signatory countries to the Santiago agreements" 17• That was conceived as an inter-State problem
not a problem relating to itinerant fisherman. And not only such a problem.
5.6. The three States were concerned with "friction between the countries", caused by
boundary violations by fishermen. Consistent with the purposes of the Complementary
Convention, the States wished to eliminate obstacles to their complete co-operation in defence of
their maritime claims. Maritime claims which were unprecedented. Violations of the lateral
maritime boundaries were such an obstacle.
5.7.Now we come to Article 1-which Professor Lowe rather passed over. lt says:
168
eR 2012/29, p.21,para.20 (Lowe).
169
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 50, p. 276, first recital.
170
eR 2012/28, p.28,para.9. (Wood)
17/bid.,p.29,para. Il(Wood).
17MP, Vol. II, Ann. 50, p. 276, second recital. - 62-
"A special zone is hereby established, at a distance of 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 between the two countries." 173
5.8. The provision uses the present tense. It refers to a maritime boundary already m
existence. The first recital indicates that it was viol11tionsof that existing boundary that prompted
this agreement. Matters could scarcely be clearer. Sir Michael tried to explain Article 1 away but,
put simply, he could not do so.
5.9. The special maritime frontier zone applying between Chile and Peru was illustrated in
Limits in the Seas, published by the United States Department of State. The edition on your
screens, and at tab 43, is from 1979.
(a) The title in the box in the top right corner is "Maritime Boundary: Chile-Peru".
(b) The solid red tine from the point where the land boundary meets the sea to the point marked P
is that maritime boundary.
(c) Point C is the point on the boundary where Chile's 200-nautical-mile maritime entitlement
stops.
(d) The line between point C and point P is the part of the maritime boundary that defeats Peru's
claim to the area of high seas, alta mar, or the outer triangle. You will hear more about that
from David Colson tomorrow.
(e) Relevant for us now are the areas shaded red on either side of the maritime boundary. Their
caption says "10 nautical mile wide maritime frontier zones". They are the zones created by
Article 1 of the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone.
vessels.
(g) There is another on the Peruvian side, for the benefit of straying Chilean vessels.
(h) The area close to the shore where there is no zone of tolerance is the area within
12 nautical miles of the coast. In that inshore area even artisanal fishing vessels were expected
to be able to observe the maritime boundary without the need for a zone of tolerance. When
time proved that expectation to have been too optimistic, Chile and Peru concluded formai
agreements to signal the maritime boundary, a point to which I will come shortly.
173
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 5p. 276, Art1. - 63-
5.10. On your screen now you see the equivalent sketch-map from a publication from the
State Oceanic Administration Policy Research Office of the People's Republic of China- tab 44.
The publication from which this cornes is titled Collection of International Maritime Delimitation
Treaties, that was published in 1989.
(a) In the top right corner, we have translated the caption: "Peru-Chile maritime boundary".
(b) The heading at the top of the page identifies the delimitation treaty which is the source of the
boundary: the Santiago Declaration.
(c) In the centre of the diagram you see the parallel of latitude constituting the maritime boundary
and the special maritime frontier zones on each side of it.
5.11. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the parties could not have established these
maritime frontier zones if they did not have a maritime frontier. Without a whisper of protest or a
hint of a request for correction from Peru, that maritime frontier is exactly what Limits in the Seas
has depicted for the last 33 years and the Chinese Collection of International Maritime
Delimitation Treaties for the last 23 years.
5.12. Of course these publications contain the usual caveat that they do not represent official
acceptance of the maritime boundaries they depict. But they serve the useful purpose of illustrating
the special maritime frontier zones and they show how the Santiago Declaration and the Agreement
Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone were understood internationally - without dispute or
query on the part of Peru.
5.13. This week, Peru attempted to draw legal consequences from minor differences in
terminology. You will recall the 1952 Minutes refer to "the boundary line of the jurisdictional
174
zone of each country" • In the relevant part of the 1954 Minutes it refers to the "dividing line of
the jurisdictional waters" 175. These are differences in terminology to which the parties attached no
legal significance.
5.14. What counts is that in 1952 and 1954 the parties made and then confirmed
comprehensive claims of exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction, and it was those claims of
exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction that they delimited by agreement.
174
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 56p.320.
17CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 38p. 341. - 64-
5.15. But even if terminology did matter, the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime
Frontier Zone ends the argument. Its first article uses the words "maritime boundary",
"limite maritimo" in Spanish. It is the "maritime boundary" that is constituted by the parallel of
latitude. The title refers to the "maritime frontier zone", zonafronteriza maritima. The first recital
uses just plain"maritime frontier",frontera maritima. In plain English, or in bad Spanish, it could
not be clearer what the parties were referring to.
5.16. Conscious that thereis no way to read Article 1 other thanas an acknowledgment of an
existing maritime boundary, Peru contended in its written pleadings that, because Article 1 of the
1954 Agreement refers to the maritime boundary between "the two countries", it refers only to a
maritime boundary between Ecuador and Peru. That argument appears to have been dropped
not the only thing that was dropped earlier this week- and unsurprisingly so, but it does retain
some forensic value for the Court in showing how Peru has been willing to run a line of argument
that the 1952 Declaration did establish a maritime boundary, albeit only with Ecuador. And now
we are told there is nothing, nothing.
5.17. For good measure, I should add that, in its written pleadings, Peru offered no plausible
explanation why the parties would have limited the entire effectof the 1954 Agreement to only one
pair of States, or how the language identifies Peru and Ecuador as that pair, or why Chile would
have been party to the.Agreement if its provisions wereintended to have no e:ffectfor it.
5.18. The further difficulty for Peru, so far as concerns the 1954 Agreement Relating to a
Special Maritime Frontier Zone, is that it has nothing to do with islands, and yet it refers in express
-----==~~=~~~=::_Term~_!~-~=~~~--pa~~llel-_~~i~~con~tirute~t_li.elnaritimeb<)~fim~!~-~~~e~~~~ne~~~~~~~i.i~tri~s~:~·Tne=~·==~-----
Agreement does not mention islands once, and of course not- perhaps it should have, perhaps the
fishermen will run into the islands. It has too with creating a zone of tolerance between adjacent
States. So much for the case that Article IV is correctly interpreted as confined to islands alone.
5.19. And just so that you can see how Article 1 of the Agreement Relating to a Special
Maritime Frontier Zone would have to look if Peru's arguments on its interpretation were to be
accepted, we show you on the screen a redraft.
5.20. The true treaty text is shown in black. Peru asks you to delete the words with a tine
through them. So that it would read: - 65-
A special zone is hereby established, at a distance of 12 nautical milesfrom the
coast, extending ta a breadth of 10 nautical miles on either side of the paralle! which
constitutes the maritime boundary an informa! and temporary line used only for the
limited purposes offisheries jurisdiction close ta the shore between the two eountries
Ecuador and Peru.
This is not to interpret the provision; it is to rewrite it.
5.21. Just as you decided in the Territorial Dispute between Libya and Chad, in which the
1955 Agreement was by no means unequivocal, so in the Agreement Relating to a Special
Maritime Frontier Zone, "the existence of a determined frontier was accepted and acted upon" and
this subsequent agreement "mention[s] 'the frontier' ... with no suggestion of there being any
uncertainty about it" (Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1994, p. 35, para. 66)- nor, I would add, hesitation or diplomatie diffidence.
5.22. The ordinary meaning of the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone
is so clear that reference to its drafting in the 1954 Minutes is unnecessary. But, of course,
advocates when they say that reference to minutes is unnecessary then immediately go on and refer
to them, and I will do that tao. But I propose to take the Court to them for completeness. They are
at tab 7.
5.23. We have already seen that the Ecuadorean Delegate, Mr. Salvador Lara- whose
persistence is to be admired- was eager to reiterate at the 1954 Conference the agreement already
reached by the parties on maritime delimitation in 1952. In the discussion on the Complementary
Convention, he settled for recording in the Minutes the three States' agreement that they had
already settled their maritime boundaries. When it came to the Agreement Relating to a Special
Maritime Frontier Zone, he proposed that a reference to the boundary agreement be included in the
treaty text. This time he was successful.
5.24. I refer you to tab 7 at page 15:
"Upon the proposai by Mr. SALVADOR LARA, the concept already declared
in Santiago that the parallel starting at the boundary point on the coast constitutes the
maritime boundary between the neighbouring signatory countries, was incorporated
into thisarticle."76
5.25. "This Article" is Article 1 of the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier
Zone. lt was deliberately drafted to incorporate the "maritime boundary" that had been "already
176
CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 3p.356. - 66-
declared in Santiago". That maritime boundary clearly applied to ali "neighbouring signatory
countries", not just two of them.
5.26. The next paragraph of the Minutes shows that the initial draftof Article 1 was amended
"~------ - -----·----· ~--- -
to incorporate a reference to the maritime boundary, and that paragraph of the Minutes contains
exactly what became the first article of the treaty. 1make no apologies for repetition:
"A special zone is hereby established, at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the
coast, extending to a breadth of 10 nautical miles on either side of the parallel which
177
constitutes the maritime boundary between the two countries."
5.27. The 1952 and 1954 Minutes formally record contemporaneous agreements between the
three States on the proper interpretation of Article IV. It is ineluctable.
5.28. Peru omits to translate a key part of the 1952 Minutes. It omits entirely a key part of
the 1954 Minutes. And, instead, it offers the Court the witness statement of a Peruvian national,
Mr. Cristobal Rosas, written in August 2010, 56 years after Santiago and six months after the
Counter-Memorial.
5.29. As the Court has seen, the Santiago Declaration was drafted during the First Session of
the Juridical Affairs Commission at Santiago. The 1952 Minutes record the discussion. The
attendance list does not include Mr. Rosas; he was not there.
5.30. Mr. Rosas nonetheless swears in his witness statement dated August 2010 that "as an
eyewitness of the discussions, 1 can assure that in the 1952 Conference of Santiago the issue of
178
establishing boundaries between the maritime zones of the countries was not addressed" • That
"nothing about boundaries" line will now sound familiar to the Court- "nothing". But it is
Declaration be drafted on the basis that the boundary between their maritime zones was to be the
parallel.
5.31. I should add that the record shows that Mr. Rosas was at the relevant sessions of the
inter-State conference in 1954. But in his witness statement written 56 years later, Mr. Rosas is
silent on every one of the multiple interventions and agreements concerning maritime delimitation
recorded in those Minutes.
17CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 39, p. 356.
178
PR, Vol. II, Appendix A, p. 15. - 67-
5.32. Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, Mr. Rosas is to be congratulated on his longevity
but not on his memory.
6. The 1954 Aclaracion
6.1. The Final Act of the 1954 Conference contains an Aclaraci6n adopted by the parties. It
is at tab 8. This "clarification" recorded agreed authentic interpretation of the treaties to which it
related. The relevant part is that addressing the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier
Zone, which is at page 13.
6.2. The zone of tolerance established by that treaty was available only in cases of
"accidentai presence" of a vessel on the wrong side of the maritime boundary. In the clarification,
the parties agreed that whether a vessel's presence was "accidentai" for the purposes of Article 2
was to "be determined exclusively by the authorities of the country whose maritime jurisdictional
179
boundary would have been transgressed" , not whose construction line would have been
transgressed, his maritime jurisdictional boundary would have been transgressed.
6.3. This clarification was assented toby the plenipotentiaries of the three States.
6.4. It constitutes further clear contemporaneous recognition that the three States - ali
three - bad delimited their maritime zones, and that there was a "maritime jurisdictional
boundary" in place. Sir Michael tried to explain this language away on Tuesday. Again, he could
not do so.
7. Authentic interpretation of the Santiago Declaration
7.1. The parties to the 1952 and 1954 agreements dealt expressly with the inter-relationship
between those two sets of agreements. At tab 10, page 5, you will see that in Article 4 of the
Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone, they agreed that ali of its provisions
"shall be deemed to be an integral and complementary part of, and not to derogate from, the
resolutions and agreements adopted at the" Santiago Conference 180•
179
CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 40,p. 369.
180MP, Vol. II, Ann. 50p.277, Art. 4. -68-
7.2. First among such agreements was the Santiago Declaration. It was the foundational
treaty in which the States agreed on the sovereign character of their claims and delimited those
claims.
7.3. In the Complementary Convention, they reinforced their claims and agreed to co-operate
in defending them.
7.4. In a suite of five other agreements signed on the same day, they agreed on a range of
other specifie matters of implementation:
181
(a) first, sanctions for violation of each State's maritime zone ;
(b) second, surveillance and control of each State's maritime zone 182;
(c) third, the granting of permits by each State for the exploitation of the resources in its maritime
183
zone: ali resources, not just fisheries ;
184
(d) fourth, the setting of quotas for the hunting of sperm whale ; and, the one most relevant for
our purposes
(e) the Agreement Relating to the Special Maritime Frontier Zone.
7.5. The final article of each one of the six treaties was the same. Each provided that it was
deemed to be an integral and complementary part of the resolutions and agreements adopted in
Santiago.
7.6. The three States made explicit that the multiple agreements they signed in 1952 and
1954 were to be considered a coherent system.
7.7. Therefore, the following parts of the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier
Declaration:
(i) the reference to the "maritime frontier zone" in the title;
(ii) the reference in the first recital to "violations of the maritime frontier between adjacent
States"; and
18RP, Vol. Il, Ann. 34.
18/bid.,Ann. 35.
18Ibid.,Ann. 36, esp. Art. 1.
18/bid.,Ann. 37. - 69-
(iii) the reference in Article 1 to "the parallel which constitutes the maritime boundary
between the two countries".
7.8. None of those explicit references to the existing maritime boundary had anything to do
with islands. The maritime boundary to which the parties repeatedly referred in the
1954Agreement isthe one they had agreed to in 1952.
8. Domestic approval
8.1. The Santiago Declaration and the related treaties of December 1954 were presented
together to Peru's Congress for approval in May 1955. Congress duly granted that approval, but
before doing so, its Foreign Affairs Committee studied and wrote a report on those agreements.
8.2. This report is another document that is multiplied in the record of this case but, again,
you have to be careful which document you refer to. The Congressional Report contains 11 pages
and is available at tab 12,Annex 78 to the Rejoinder 18•
8.3. I draw your attention to the passage translated m your binders at page 14, third
paragraph oftab 12. In connection with the 1954 agreement the Congressional Report referred to
"violations of maritime frontiers"- note the plural "frontiers"- "between the neighbouring
8.4. In its Memorial, Peru filed three pages of the Report, but not this page. In its Reply, it
filed the whole of the Report, but it did not translate this passage. The Reply states: "What is
significant is that ... the 'Report'... contained no reference to maritime boundaries" 187• Weil,
that is simply wrong, and it is symptomatic ofPeru's tendency to ignore or edit the evidence.
8.5. One of the authors of the Congressional Report was Congressman PefiaPrado. He gave
a speech to Congress on 5 May 1955, the day before the approval by Congress of the package of
the Santiago Declaration and the 1954treaties.
8.6. The Parties differ as to the reliability of the only verbatim record of Congressman
188
Prado's speech that is so far available • When asked, the librarians at Peru's Congressional
185
RC, para.2.80.
186
RC, Vol. III,Ann. 78,p. 472.
187RP, para. 3.163.
188
See RC, paras2.74-2.81. - 70-
Library stated that the verbatim records of the Congress for the period 1947 to 1955 are missing.
They are, soto say, inédites. Perhaps someone pushed the delete button on them as weil!
8.7. But you do not need the Congressional records, since you do have the verbatim
transcript of Congressman Prado's statement as published in a Peruvian newspaper of record two
days after it was delivered. It is at tab 13. Mr. Prado explained to Congress the purposes of the
Santiago Conference of 1952 -thiis to the Peruvian Congress. At page 7, you see that he said:
"The purposes ofthese conferences held in Santiago de Chile are the declaration
of the maritime zone, the Agreements [signed] for establishing the control and
surveillanceof our seas, for establishing the maritime boundaries between the
signatory countries, for determining the sanctions, the permits and the meeting
Permanent Commission that must take place everyr."89
8.8. The next day Congress approved the Santiago Declaration and the 1954 treaties deemed
to form an integral and complementary part of it.
9. The 1955 Protocol of Accession to the Santiago Declaration
9.1. Now, in October 1955, Chile, Ecuador and Peru signed a protocol to the Santiago
Declaration by which it was made open to accession by other States in the •The protocol
specified, "at the moment of accession, every State shall be able to determine the extension and
191
form of delimitation of its respective zo•e"I stress the word "delimitation", and recall how
Peru's counsel sought earlier in the week to suggest that this was a largely unknown concept in the
1950s, and how States were concerned only with the sideless extension of their zones out to sea.
9.2. Asto the Protocol, the contemporaneous memoranda of Peru and Chile explain that the
·:::..·=::.:::=.:metho di·iaoif::abopudn~=abryy=tdheeoriihar:ettes::=Parties=:to:-the:=Santi·:··.·:·:·:··············
Declaration would not necessarily apply to the States acceding toit subsequently. Tab 14 contains
a memorandum written by the Peruvian Embassy in Ecuador, in June 1955. In this memorandum,
Peru explained that for acceding States it was "inclined to delete" Article IV of the Santiago
Declaration. The significantpart Ofit you sàtpage3, théeffectofArtieleiVWas to "establish
192
the frontier between the countrieinapplicable in other locatio•s"
18CMC, Vol. IV, Ann. 246, p. 1469.
190
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 52.
191
/bid., Annp.291.
19CMC, Vol. III, Anp.537. - 71 -
9.3. Chile concurred. Its memorandum is attab 15. At page 3, Chile observed that it was,
"indispensable that the possibility of making reservations to the principles on
delimitation of the maritime frontier should be set out in the Protocol, due to the fact
that, for example, the princip le of the Parallel stipulated in the Declaration of Santiago
193
is practically inapplicable to frontiers ofother countries" •
9.4. Chile and Peru thought that the method by which they had delimited their own maritime
boundary might not be applicable elsewhere. In doing so, they acknowledged:
(a) first, that they had delimited their own maritime boundary in Article IV;
(b) secondly, that they used a method which they deemed appropriate.
10. The Signalling Agreements of 1968 and 1969
10.1. 1 turn to the Signalling Agreements of 1968 and 1969. These are bilateral; they
concerned only Chile and Peru. Through these agreements, Chile and Peru gave physical effect to
and signalled their maritime boundary.
10.2. ln April 1968, delegates met at the seaward portion of the land frontier of the two
States. They jointly recorded their task in the document which is at tab 17. At page 4, you see that
this was to conduct "an on-site study for the installation of leading marks visible from the sea to
materialise the parallel of the maritime frontier originating at Boundary Marker number one" 19•
10.3. The next year the two States established a Mixed Commission. Its Acta, or Minutes,
of22 August 1969, are at tab 22. Its complete title is "The Act of the Chile-Peru Mixed
Commission in Charge of Verifying the Location of Boundary Marker No. 1 and Signalling the
Maritime Boundary" 195•
10.4. At page 3, the Members of the Mixed Commission recorded their purpose in the most
explicit terms:
"verifying the original geographical position of the concrete-made Boundary Marker
number one 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 ... "196•
19CMC, Vol. III, Ann. 71, p. 541.
19MP, Vol. II, Ann. 59p. 336.
19CMC, Vol. II, Ann. 6,p.33.
196
/bid.p. 35. - 72-
And for that purpose, they had established a Mixed Commission.
10.5.It is hardly a surprise that on Tuesday morning Peru passed over the agreements of
1968 and 1969 as quickly as it possibly could. To ensure that the Court is properly informed on
this important series agreements- illlportaJ:l!bothfor vv:haJiE':dfIr'~"hE'i:tt signified -
Mr. Paulsson will elaborate on them further tomorrow.
10.6. The simple point for nowis that States do not agree to materialize or give effect to
maritime boundaries that do not exist.
11. Conclusion
11.1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, on Tuesday Peru characterized Chile's case as
197
relying on "a number of miscellaneous events" • 1 conclude with ten brief reflections on a
chronology which is characterized not by its miscellaneousness but by its consistency.
(a) First, in 1947, Chile and Peru issued concordant unilateral proclamations in which they claimed
sovereignty over areas extending00 nautical miles to sea that abutted perfectly and did not
overlap.
(b) Second, in August 1952, the Parties concluded the Santiago Declaration. They agreed between
themselves that eachof them was sovereign over its own 200-nautical-mile exclusive maritime
zone. They delimited the maritime boundaries between them at "the parallel at the point at
which the land frontierthe States concerned reaches the sea".
(c) Third, in December 1954 the parties to the Complementary Convention formally recorded in
the Minutes their agreement that they had already delimited the maritime boundaries in 1952.
__ -------------=~TI1~r~gre-e~_tliat_tfle_!?~Erid~i_!§ _J_h_~_______ ~r.~nec§f§Hl~ae-<iftiiefioirif~I'le!efh~TaiiëriJ~u~aa~~L-
the States concerned reaches the sea. On the basis of this agreement they considered it
unnecessary to reiterate the effectticle IV in the Complementary Convention.
(d) Fourth, at the same inter-State conference in December 1954, as a supplement to the Santiago
Declaration, the parties signed the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier
That Agreement created zones of tolerance on either side of the pre-existing maritime boundary
197
CR 2012/28, p. 26, para.1 (Wood). - 73-
and is replete with references to that boundary. Those references are an integral and
complementary part of the Santiago Declaration.
(e) Fifth, in January 1955, the Peruvian Foreign Minister, together with the President of Peru,
issued a Supreme Resolution concerning the correct depiction of Peru's maritime zone for the
purpose of cartographie and geodesie works. You will hear more about it tomorrow from
David Colson. It specified: "In accordance with clause IV of the Declaration of Santiago" the
outer limit ofPeru's maritime zone "may not extend beyond that of the corresponding parallel
198
at the point where the frontier ofPeru reaches the sea" •
(/) Sixth, on 4 May 1955 the Peruvian Congress received the report of its Foreign Affairs
Committee, which referred to Peru's "maritime frontiers" inthe plural.
(g) Seventh, on 5 May 1955 Dr. Pefia Prado spoke to that report in the Peruvian Congress, noting
that the Santiago Conference had included among its aims "establishing the maritime
boundaries between the signatory countries" 199•
(h) Eighth, on that basis, the Peruvian Congress approved the Santiago Declaration, the
Complementary Convention and the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier
200
Zone •
(i) Ninth, when the parties to the Santiago Declaration were opening it to accession by other
States, they acknowledged that in Article IV they had delimited their maritime boundaries
using parallels of latitude. They expressly dis-applied that method for acceding States.
(j) Tenth, in 1968 and 1969, Chile and Peru agreed to give physical effect to their maritime
boundary by constructing two lighthouses to signal it. In doing so they expressly confirmed the
existence of their agreed maritime boundary, and that it is the parallel of latitude passing
through the first boundary marker oftheir land boundary.
11.2. Mr. President, Members of the Court, history is like Ife - "just one damn thing after
201
another" •
198
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 9, p. 39, Art. 2.
199CMC, Vol. IV, Ann. 246, p. 1469.
200
MP, Vol. II, Ann. 1O.
201
"Life isjust one damn thing after another", E. Hubbard, The Philistine, Vol. 30, December 1909, p. 32. - 74-
11.3. The life of this boundary has been one of agreement, beginning with the delimitation
agreement in 1952. The subsequent history has been just one affirmation after another, in 1954, in
1955, in 1968, in 1969 and on many occasions before and after that.
11.4. Now, Peru has skipped over much ofthis material, and has sought to fill the gaps in its
case with the repeated recantation of your words in Nicaragua v. Honduras that "[t]he
establishment of a permanent maritime boundary is a matter of grave importance and agreement is
not easily to be presumed" (case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua
and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, IC.J. Reports 2007 (II),
p. 735, para. 253). But Nicaragua v. Honduras was a case where there was no written agreement,
with Honduras. Honduras claims that a boundary existed by virtue of a tacit agreement. That is
not this case. The agreements exist here, the Court's task is to interpret these agreements, and that
is the point that you made quite explicitly in Romania v. Ukraine.
11.5. I do not have time to read the relevant passage, but I refer to paragraph 68 ofyour very
careful Judgment in Romaina v. Ukraine, where you drew a distinction between an argument based
on the implied boundary and an argument placed on the interpretation of an actual agreement.
11.6. Your task before the Court is interpret the agreements between the parties. Peru's
emphasis·on burden ofproofis misconceived-as weil as notably defensive.
11.7. Mr. President, Members of the Court, on Monday afternoon Peru acknowledged, as
elemental rules of international law compelled it to do, that the primary means to delimit a
maritime boundary is by agreemenr 02• It is common ground that if the Parties have delimited their
there was such an agreement in 1952, confirmed in 1954. Quod, Mr. President, Members of the
Court, erat demonstrandum. Thank you, Mr. President.
20CR 2012/27, p.34, para2 (Bundy). - 75-
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Crawford. This completes today's pleadings by
Chile. The Court will meet again tomorrow, on Friday 7 December at 10 a.m., to hear the
continuation of Chile's first round of oral argument.
Thank you. The sitting is closed.
The Court rose at 6.00 p.m.l'
Audience publique tenue le jeudi 6 décembre 2012, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, en l’affaire du Différend maritime (Pérou c. Chili)