Volume II - Annexes 1-51

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MARITIME DISPUTE
(PERU v. CHILE)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF CHILE
VOLUME II
ANNEXES 1 – 51
9 MARCH 2010

I
VoLUME II ANNEXES 1 - 51 TREATIES AND INTER-STATE ACTSAnnex 1.Agreement between France and Spain, signed at Bayonne on 30 March 1879 3Annex 2.Declaration of Panama, in the Final Act of the Consultative Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics, signed at Panama City on 3 October 193913Annex 3.Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries between Peru and Ecuador, signed at Rio de Janeiro on 29 January 1942 17Annex 4.Agreement Relating to Measures of Supervision and Control in the Maritime Zones of the Signatory Countries, signed at Lima on 4 December 1954 23Annex 5.Regulation of Permits for the Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific, signed at Quito on 16 September 1955 27Annex 6.Act of the Chile-Peru Mixed Commission in Charge of Verifying the Location of Boundary Marker No. 1 and Signalling the Maritime Boundary, 22 August 1969 33Annex 7.Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Brazil and the Government of Uruguay on the Definitive Demarcation of the Sea Outlet of the River Chui and the Lateral Maritime Border, signed at Montevideo on 21 July 1972 49
II
Annex 8.Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Regulation of the Fishing of North-East Arctic (Arcto-Norwegian) Cod, signed at London on 15 March 197459Annex 9.Agreement Concerning Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Co-operation between the Republics of Colombia and Ecuador, signed at Quito on 23 August 1975 63Annex 10.ReciprocalFisheries Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada, signed at Washington D.C. on 24 February 1977 67Annex 11.Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Australia Concerning the Implementation of a Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Arrangement, signed at Jakarta on 29 October 1981 73Annex 12.Agreement on the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Area of the South-East Pacific, signed at Lima on 12 November 198179Annex 13.Protocol for the Protection of the South-East Pacific against Pollution from Land-based Sources, signed at Quito on 22 July 1983 103Annex 14.Declaration of Viña del Mar of 10 February 1984 133Annex 15.Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina, signed at Vatican City on 29 November 1984 139Annex 16.Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Co-operation in the Field of Fisheries, signed at Moscow on 12 May 1985149
III
Annex 17.Agreement between the Libyan Arab Socialist People’s Jamahariya and the Republic of Tunisia to Implement the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf Case, signed at Benghazi on 8 August 1988 155Annex 18.Protocol for the Conservation and Administration of the Protected Marine and Coastal Areas of the South-East Pacific, signed at Paipa on 21 September 1989 159Annex 19.Protocol for the Protection of the South-East Pacific against Radioactive Contamination, signed at Paipa on 21 September 1989 171Annex 20.Protocol on the Programme for Regional Study of the Phenomenon “El Niño” in the South-East Pacific, signed at Callao on 6 November 1992 181Annex 21.Final Minutes of Understanding of the Fourth Bilateral Meeting between the Commanders of the Frontier Naval Zones of Chile and Peru, 13 July 1995189Annex 22.Interim Accord between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, signed at New York on 13 September 1995199Annex 23.Act of Brasilia, signed by the Presidents of Peru and Ecuador at Brasilia on 26 October 1998 209Annex 24.Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Peru and the Government of the Republic of Chile for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed at Lima on 2 February 2000 215Annex 25.Framework Agreement for the Conservation of the Living Marine Resources on the High Seas of the South-East Pacific, signed at Santiago on 14 August 2000 (not in force) (also known as the “Galápagos Agreement”) 219
IV
Annex 26.Minutes of the Fifteenth Roundtable Discussions between the High Commands of the Armed Forces of Chile and Peru, signed by the Chief of Staff of the National Defence Force of Chile and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force of Peru on 29 September 2000231Annex 27.Agreement on Provisional Arrangements for the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between the Republic of Tunisia and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed at Algiers on 11 February 2002241Annex 28.Final Minutes of Understanding of the Eleventh Bilateral Meeting between the Commanders of the Frontier Naval Zones of Chile and Peru, 16 August 2002 245Annex 29.Final Minutes of Understanding of the Twelfth Bilateral Meeting between the Commanders of the Frontier Naval Zones of Chile and Peru between 21 and 25 July 2003 257Annex 30.Joint Declaration by the Presidents of Ecuador and Chile on the Occasion of the Official Visit to Ecuador of the President of Chile, 1 December 2005 265Annex 31.Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Peru and the Government of the Republic of Chile, signed at Lima on 22 August 2006 269Annex 32.Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Chile-Ecuador Bilateral Inter-Ministerial Council of 6-7 September 2009275RECoRDS oF INTERNATIoNAL CoNFERENCESAnnex 33.Minutes of the Third Session of the Third Commission of the Ninth Inter-American Conference, 27 April 1948 281Annex 34.Minutes of the Second Session of the Legal Affairs Commission of the 1952 Conference, 12 August 1952 at 4.00 p.m. 289
V
Annex 35.Minutes of the Inaugural Session of the 1954 CPPS Meeting, 4 October 1954 at 6.00 p.m.299Annex 36.Minutes of the Plenary Session of the 1954 CPPS Meeting, 8 October 1954 at 10.30 a.m. 307Annex 37.Minutes of the Inaugural Session of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 1 December 1954 at 5.00 p.m. 327Annex 38.Minutes of the First Session of Commission I of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 2 December 1954 at 10.00 a.m. 335Annex 39.Minutes of the Second Session of Commission I of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 3 December 1954 at 10.00 a.m. 345Annex 40.Final Minutes of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 4 December 1954 357Annex 41.United States Department of State, Santiago Negotiations on Fishery Conservation Problems,14September – 5 October 1955 371Annex 42.Intervention by Dr. García Sayán of Peru in the general debate in the Second Committee of the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 13 March 1958401Annex 43.Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 30th Meeting of the Second Session of the Second Committee of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 7 August 1974 at 11.10 a.m. 409Annex 44.Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 45th Meeting of the Second Session of the Second Committee of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 28 August 1974 at 11.00 a.m. 413
VI
Annex 45.Intervention by Mr. Bákula of Peru during the 48th Meeting of the Second Session of the Second Committee of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 2 May 1975 at 3.30 p.m. 417Annex 46.Letter No. 804/124 of 20 August 1979 from the Heads of Delegation of Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to the President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea421Annex 47.Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 118th Meeting of the Resumed Eighth Session of the Plenary Meetings of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 23 August 1979 at 4.35 p.m. 427Annex 48.Statement by the Delegation of Peru at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 4 April 1980431Annex 49.Note verbale of 9 March 1981 from the Heads of Delegation of Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to the President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, transmitting the Cali Declaration of 24 January 1981 437Annex 50.Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 182nd Plenary Meeting of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 30 April 1982 at 3.20 p.m. 445Annex 51.Statement by the CPPS to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 449
1
TREATIES AND INTER-STATE ACTS
2
3
Annex 1
Agreement between France and Spain, signed at Bayonne on 30 March 1879
Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France
4
Annex 1
Annex 1
5
6
Annex 1
Annex 1
7
8
Annex 1
Annex 1
9
10
Annex 1
Annex 1
11
[…]
Art. 2
Une ligne transversale ABCD partant du point extrême (A) du cap Figuier sur la côte espagnole et aboutissant à l’extrémité (D) de la côte française, à la pointe du Corbeau, déterminera la limite de la baie du côté de la mer, conformément au plan annexé.
[…]
Art. 6
Une ligne partant du point F, sur le côté espagnol de l’embouchure de la rivière, s’élèvera parallèlement à la côte de ce pays jusqu’à la rencontre du point I d’une ligne RB.
La ligne RB s’élèvera du point R qui correspond actuellement au milieu de la portion de la côte espagnole comprise entre le château du Figuier [et] l’embouchure de la Bidassoa, et coupera la transversale au tiers de sa longueur, au point B, à 1018 mètres du cap Figuier.
Les eaux comprises entre la ligne brisée FIB et la côte d’Espagne, seront placées sous la juridiction exclusive de ce pays.
Art. 7
Une ligne partant de la pointe des Dunes (G) sur la côte française coupera la ligne transversale au point (C) dans le tiers de sa longueur, à 1018 mètres de la pointe du Courbeau.
Les eaux comprise entre cette ligne (GC) et la côte de France, seront placées sous la juridiction exclusive de ce pays.
[…]
12
13
Annex 2
Declaration of Panama, in the Final Act of the Consultative Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics, signed at Panama City on 3 October 1939(1939) 1 Department of State Bulletin 319
14
Annex 2
HeinOnline -- 1 Dep’t St. Bull. 331 1939HeinOnline -- 1 Dep’t St. Bull. 319 1939
Annex 2
15
HeinOnline -- 1 Dep’t St. Bull. 332 1939
16
Annex 2
HeinOnline -- 1 Dep’t St. Bull. 333 1939
17
Annex 3
Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries between Peru and Ecuador, signed at Rio de Janeiro on 29 January 1942
Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru
18
Annex 3
Annex 3
19
[…]
The Governments of Peru and Ecuador, desiring to settle the boundary dispute which, over a long period of time, has separated them, and taking into consideration the offer of friendly cooperation that was made to them by the Governments of the United States of America, of the Argentine Republic, of the United States of Brazil, and of Chile, to seek a prompt and honorable solution to the problem, and moved by the American spirit which prevails in the Third Consultative Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, have resolved to conclude a Protocol of peace, friendship, and boundaries in the presence of the Representatives of those four friendly Governments. To this end, the following Plenipotentiaries take part:
For the Republic of Peru, Doctor Alfredo Solf y Muro, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and
For the Republic of Ecuador, Doctor Julio Tobar Donoso, Minister of Foreign Affairs; who, after having exhibited the respective full powers of the parties, and having found them in good and due form, agree to the signing of the following Protocol:
[…]
ARTICLE FIVE
The activity of the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile shall continue until the definitive demarcation of the frontiers between Peru and Ecuador has been completed, this protocol and the execution thereof remaining under the guaranty of the four countries mentioned at the beginning of this article.
[…]
20
Annex 3
Annex 3
21
ARTICLE EIGHT
The frontier line shall be referred to the following points:
a)- To the West:
1- Boca de Capones in the Ocean;
2- The Zarumilla River and the Quebrada Balsamal or Lajas;
3- The Puyango or Tumbes River to the Quebrada de Cazaderos;
4- Cazaderos;
5- The Quebrada de Pilares y del Alamor to the Chira River;
6- The Chira River, upstream;
7- The Macará, Calvas, and Espíndola Rivers, upstream, to the origins of the latter in the Nudo de Sabanillas;
8- From the Nudo de Sabanillas to the Canchis River;
9- Along the whole course of the Canchis River, downstream;
10- The Chinchipe River, downstream, to the point at which it receives the San Francisco River.
[…]
ARTICLE NINE
It is understood that the above-described line shall be accepted by Peru and Ecuador for the demarcation of the frontier between the two countries, by technical experts, on the ground. The Parties may, however, when the line is being laid out on the ground, grant such reciprocal concessions as they may consider advisable in order to adjust the aforesaid line to geographical realities. These rectifications shall be made with the collaboration of the representatives of the United States of America, the Argentine Republic, Brazil and Chile.
The Governments of Peru and Ecuador shall submit this Protocol to their respective Congresses and the corresponding approval is to be obtained within a period of not more than 30 days.
In trust thereof, the Plenipotentiaries mentioned above sign and seal the present Protocol, in two copies, in Spanish, in the city of Rio de Janeiro, at one o’clock, the twenty-ninth day of January, of the year nineteen hundred and forty-two, under the auspices of His Excellency the President of Brazil and in the presence of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic, Brazil and Chile, and of the Under-Secretary of State of the United States of America.
[…]
22
23
Annex 4
Agreement Relating to Measures of Supervision and Control in the Maritime Zones of the Signatory Countries, signed at Lima on 4 December 1954
CPPS, Convenios, Acuerdos, Protocolos, Declaraciones, Estatuto y Reglamento de la CPPS, 3rd edn, 2007, p. 74
24
Annex 4
74CoNVENIo SobRE MEDIDAS DE VIGILANCIA y CoNTRoLDE LAS ZoNAS MARÍTIMAS DE LoS PAÍSES SIGNATARIoSLima, Perú, 4 de diciembre de 1954PRIMERoCorresponde a cada país signatario efectuar la vigilancia y control de la explotaciónde las riquezas de su zona marítima, por conducto de los organismos y medios queconsidere necesarios.SEGUNDoLa vigilancia y control a que se refiere el artículo primero, sólo podrán serejercitados por cada país dentro de las aguas de su jurisdicción. Sin embargo, susnaves o aeronaves podrán ingresar a la zona marítima de otro país signatario, sinnecesidad de autorización especial, cuando dicho país solicite expresamente sucooperación.TERCERoLas naves o aeronaves de los países signatarios estarán obligadas a enviar a laautoridad que cada país señale, toda la información posible acerca de la situación,identificación y faena de los barcos de pesca y caza que avisten en el curso de suderrota. Las telecomunicaciones que se efectúen con este fin, estarán libres deportes, tasas e impuestos. Cada país reglamentará la forma de operar para elcumplimiento de estas disposiciones.CUARToA fin de hacer más efectiva la vigilancia, las oficinas técnicas1 deberán crear unsistema rápido y eficiente de intercambio de informaciones entre los paísessignatarios.QUINToToda persona está facultada para denunciar ante las autoridades marítimascorrespondientes, la presencia de embarcaciones que se dediquen a la explotaciónclandestina de los recursos del mar dentro de la zona marítima.SEXToLos cónsules de los países signatarios deberán informar permanentemente a susGobiernos, acerca del alistamiento, zarpe, tránsito, recalada, aprovisionamiento ydemás antecedentes relativos a todas las expediciones balleneras o pesqueras que1 Las Oficinas Técnicas pasaron a ser las Secciones Nacionales de la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur.
Annex 4
25
[...]
First
It shall be the function of each signatory country to supervise and control the exploitation of the resources in its Maritime Zone by the use of such organs and means as it considers necessary.
Sec ond
The supervision and control referred to in article one shall be exercised by each country exclusively in the waters of its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, their ships or aircrafts will be allowed to enter the Maritime Zone of another signatory country with no need for special authorization when their cooperation is expressly requested.
[...]
26
Annex 4
75salgan o pasen por los puertos que estén acreditados y cuyo destino verdadero oaparente sea las aguas del Pacífico Sur.SÉPTIMoTodo lo establecido en el presente Convenio se entenderá ser parte integrante,complementaria y que no deroga las resoluciones y acuerdos adoptados en laConferencia sobre Explotación y Conservación de las Riquezas Marítimas delPacífico Sur, celebrada en Santiago de Chile, en agosto de 1952.ALFONSO BULNES CALVOPor la República de ChileJORGE SALVADOR LARAPor la República de EcuadorDAVID AGUILAR CORNEJOPor la República de PerúRATIFICACIoNES:ECUADoR: Decreto N°2.556 del 9 de noviembre de 1964 (Registro Oficial N° 376de 18 de noviembre de 1964).PERÚ: Resolución Legislativa N° 12.305, de 6 de mayo de 1955, con cúmplase porDecreto Supremo de 10 de mayo de 1955 (“El Peruano” del 12 de mayo de 1955).
27
Annex 5
Regulation of Permits for the Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific, signed at Quito on 16 September 1955
CPPS, Convenios, Acuerdos, Protocolos, Declaraciones, Estatuto y Reglamento de la CPPS, 3rd edn, 2007, p. 83
28
Annex 5
83REGLAMENTo DE PERMISoS PARA LA EXPLoTACIÓN DE LASRIQUEZAS DEL PACÍFICo SURQuito, Ecuador, 16 de septiembre de 1955TITULo l: GENERALIDADESARTÍCULo INinguna persona natural o jurídica podrá realizar faenas de pesca, de caza ocualquier otra explotación de riquezas existentes en la zona marítima de Chile,Ecuador o Perú sin contar previamente con el permiso respectivo.ARTÍCULo IIEl otorgamiento del permiso obliga en todo caso al solicitante a cumplir con lasnormas de conservación de las respectivas especies o riquezas marítimas, de acuerdocon los reglamentos y disposiciones vigentes en el país a que corresponde la zonamarina en que se efectuarán las faenas.ARTÍCULo IIILos permisos serán de tres clases:a)Permisos de explotación de riquezas minerales u otras.b)Permisos de pesca marina.c)Permisos de caza de ballenas.TÍTULo II: DE LoS PERMISoS PARA LA EXPLoTACIÓNDE RIQUEZAS MINERALESARTÍCULo IVToda solicitud de permiso para explotar riquezas minerales que se encuentran en lazona marítima, deberá ser presentada a la autoridad competente del país en el cuál seefectuará la explotación.Estos permisos deberán cumplir con las disposiciones de las legislaciones del país yse tramitaran y otorgarán conforme a ella.ARTÍCULo VUna vez otorgado el permiso, la autoridad correspondiente procederá a ponerlo enconocimiento de la Secretaría General de la Comisión Permanente para la
Annex 5
29
REGULATION OF PERMITS FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
Quito, Ecuador, 16 September 1955
Title I: Generalities
ArticleRTICLE I
No natural or legal person may carry out fishing or maritime hunting activities, or any other exploitation of the maritime resources existing in the maritime zone of Chile, Ecuador and Peru, without the respective permit.
ArticleRTICLE II
The granting of the permit obliges the applicant to comply with the regulations for conservation of the species or maritime resources, pursuant to the regulations and provisions in force in the country where the fishing activities will be carried out.
ArticleRTICLE III
There are three types of permits:
a) Permits for exploitation of the mineral resources and others;
b) Permits for maritime fishing; and
c) Permits for whale hunting.
Title II: PERMITS FOR THE EXPLOITATION
O
F MINERAL RESOURCES
ArticleRTICLE IV
Every application for a permit for the exploitation of mineral resources within the maritime zone shall be filed with the competent authority of the country in which the exploitation will take place.
These permits shall comply with the provisions of the country’s legislation, and will be processed and granted in accordance therewith.
ArticleRTICLE V
Once the permit has been granted, the relevant authority will inform the General Secretariat of the Permanent Commission for the Conservation and Exploitation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific, through the corresponding National Technical Secretariat.
30
Annex 5
84Conservación y Explotación de la Riquezas Marítimas del Pacífico Sur, porintermedio de la Secretaria Técnica Nacional respectiva1TÍTULo III: DE LoS PERMISoS DE PESCA MARÍTIMAARTÍCULo VILas solicitudes de permiso de pesca marítima se presentarán a la autoridadcompetente del país en cuya zona marítima se vayan a efectuar las faenas.ARTÍCULo VIILas solicitudes de permisos de pesca para barcos de bandera nacional o de banderaextranjera que trabajen para compañías nacionales deberán contener los requisitosque establece la legislación nacional correspondiente.ARTÍCULo VIIILas solicitudes de permisos de pesca de barcos de bandera extranjera que no trabajenpara compañías nacionales deberán, además de los requisitos del artículo anterior,expresar lo siguiente: la naturaleza de las faenas la cantidad de las especies que elsolicitante pretenda pescar, con indicación del periodo y la zona marítima en quedesea actuar, la fecha en que desea comenzar las faenas, el plazo de duración deellas y el puerto de embarque de los inspectores de fiscalización.ARTÍCULo IXCon el objeto de que se cumplan las disposiciones de contingentes internacionalesdictadas por la Comisión Permanente, la Secretaria Técnica que esta Comisión tieneen cada país procederá a comunicar por escrito a las autoridades competentes dichoscontingentes, inmediatamente fijados estos en resolución definitiva de la Comisión.ARTÍCULo XLos permisos solicitados por barcos de bandera extranjera que no trabajen paraempresas nacionales serán resueltos por las autoridades competentes del paísrespectivo de acuerdo a los informes de sus organismos técnicos.ARTÍCULo XILos permisos para pesca en zona marítima deberán cumplir con la legislaciónnacional. Los otorgados a barcos de bandera extranjera que no trabajen paraempresas nacionales deberán expresar en todo caso lo siguiente: la naturaleza de las1 Por Secretaría Técnica Nacional, debe entenderse “Sección Nacional” de acuerdo con el numeral 12 delEstatuto sobre funcionamiento de las Secciones Nacionales, aprobado en Quito el 30 de mayo de 1967.
Title III: PERMITS FOR MARITIME FISHING
ArticleRTICLE VI
The applications for permits for maritime fishing shall be filed with the competent authority of the country in whose maritime zone the fishing activities will take place.
[…]
Annex 5
31
90ARTÍCULo XXXPara los fines de los Convenios y Reglamentos vigentes en la zona marítima delPacífico Sur, se entiende por empresa nacional de caza pelágica aquella que cumplacomo mínimo con los siguientes requisitos:a) Que esté radicada en uno de los países del Pacífico Sur y constituidaconforme a la legislación de ese país; y,b) Que sea propietaria de barco o barcos factorías para la caza pelágica.Se considerará excepcionalmente y por una vez como empresa nacional aquella que,sin ser propietaria de barco factoría, tenga sobre él vigente contratos dearrendamiento con promesa de compra con un plazo improrrogable de un añomáximo para su perfeccionamiento.ARTÍCULo XXXILas disposiciones de este párrafo 2 del título IV concuerdan con las declaraciones delos representantes de Chile, Ecuador y Perú en la Conferencia Técnica Internacionalsobre Conservación de los Recursos Vivos del Mar, celebrada en Roma en 1955, enla cual se reconoció a la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur como organizaciónsimilar, pero independiente de la Comisión Ballenera Internacional, en lo que serefiere a caza de ballenas en la zona marítima del Pacífico Sur.LUIS CUBILLOS ACHURRAPor la República de ChileRAFAEL ARIZAGA VEGAPor la República de EcuadorLUIS EDGARDO LLOSAPor la República de PerúHECTOR CHIRIBOGASecretario GeneralRATIFICACIoNES:CHILE:Decreto Supremo N° 102 del 9 de marzo de 1956 (Diario Oficial del 7 deabril de 1956).ECUADoR:Decreto N° 2.616 del 30 de diciembre de 1955 (Registro Oficial N°139 del 18 de febrero de 1957).PERÚ:Resolución Legislativa N° 12.305 del 6 de mayo de 1955, con el cúmplasepor Decreto Supremo del 10 de mayo de 1955 (“El Peruano”, 12 de mayo de 1955).
32
33
Annex 6
Act of the Chile-Peru Mixed Commission in Charge of Verifying the Location of Boundary Marker No. 1 and Signalling the Maritime Boundary, 22 August 1969
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
34
Annex 6
Annex 6
35
[…]
The undersigned Representatives of Chile and of Peru, appointed by their respective Governments for the purposes of verifying the original geographical position of the concrete-made Boundary Marker number one (No. 1) of the common frontier and for determining the points of location of the Alignment Marks that both countries have agreed to install in order to signal the maritime boundary and physically to give effect to the parallel that passes through the aforementioned Boundary Marker number one, located on the seashore, constituted a Mixed Commission, in the city of Arica, on the nineteenth of August, nineteen sixty-nine.
A.- [They] Agreed to adopt the following procedure for the work to be done on the field:
1.- LOCATION OF POINT X.3 (Point that served to find the places of erection of the iron-made Boundary Marker number two and concrete-made Boundary Marker number one)
[…]
36
Annex 6
Annex 6
37
2.- DETERMINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PARALLEL THAT PASSES THROUGH BOUNDARY MARKER NUMBER ONE
a) Station with the gyroscope at Boundary Marker number one and determine the parallel in the direction 90 - 270°.
b) Physically to give effect to the parallel by means of two points (one to the West and the other to the East of Boundary Marker number one) so that they allow to continue the alignment of the parallel towards the East, where the Chilean tower shall be located, and to the West, where the Peruvian tower shall be built.
c) Determine, by trigonometric levelling, the difference of level between the points at which the front tower and rear tower shall be located.
d) Verification: It shall be done based on the azimuth obtained in 1930 from the Boundary Marker number one – [point] X.3 line.
[…]
4.- SIGNALLING
a) Boundary Marker number one and the two locations for the erection of the alignment towers shall be signalled upon the ground by a concrete pillar with bronze signals.
b) Furthermore, three reference markers (hidden signals) shall be placed for each of the markers indicated in the previous paragraph, in order to re-establish the position of the principal markers in case of their disappearance or destruction.
5.- FIELD RECORDS
There shall be two copies; one for each country.
B.- FIELDWORK
1.- On 20 August, the Mixed Commission met at Boundary Marker number three.
[…]
38
Annex 6
Annex 6
39
2.- On 21 August, the Mixed Commission met at Boundary Marker number one.
[…]
At the Boundary Marker number one Station with Origin at X.3, the 54° 11' 30" angle (complement of the 35° 48' 30" azimuth) was measured with the Wild Teodolite T-2 number 24667, to topographically determine the parallel that runs through Boundary Marker number one.
The parallel having been determined, the two points at which the front and rear alignment towers shall be erected were physically marked on this line: front tower at 6.0 metres to the West of Boundary Marker number one, in Peruvian territory; rear tower at 1,843.8 metres (distance measured with the Geodimeter) to the East of Boundary Marker number one, in Chilean territory.
40
Annex 6
Annex 6
41
The location of Boundary Marker number one and the points of location of the two alignment towers were signalled with bronze markers encrusted in concrete pillars of 0.30 by 0.30 metres, upon the ground. Each of the signals has three reference marks (hidden marks).
[…]
C.- ALIGNMENT TOWERS
The characteristics of the alignment marks, taking into account the determined values, such as the distance between the mentioned marks and their level difference, would be the following:
a) Front tower: height of approximately 22 metres from the ground to the focal point of the light.
b) Rear tower: height of 20 metres from the ground to the focal point of the light.
c) Daylight signalling shall be comprised of alternating panels of white and red-orange colour, covering three of its four sides.
d) Due to the proximity to the Chacalluta airport, the rear lighthouse shall have a sector of obscurity between approximately 060° and 160°; and for the front lighthouse, a sector of approximately 068° to 140° that does not impede visibility from the sea at all.
e) The characteristics of the lights shall be agreed prior to their commissioning by the respective technical bodies (the Hydrographic Institute of the Chilean Navy and the Division of Hydrography and Lighthouses of Peru).
f) The other characteristics indicated in the Document signed on 26 April 1968 at the Peru-Chile frontier in which the installation of alignment marks has been recommended to the respective Governments, remain unaffected.
D.- BOUNDARY MARKER NUMBER ONE
In beginning the works, the Mixed Commission observed that this pyramid had collapsed and apparently moved from its original location. This displacement was verified with the calculations made during the works.
This boundary marker has lost its original shape and is in bad condition, especially at its base, due to the effects of the passage of time.
42
Annex 6
Annex 6
43
In order to avoid incorrect interpretations of the location of the international boundary, this boundary marker was provisionally placed without a base, next to the signal that was built where this concrete-made pyramid was initially erected.
[…]
F.- CONCLUSIONS
1.- Boundary Marker number one (No.1)
The Mixed Commission suggests that the concrete-made Boundary Marker number one be rebuilt at the place where it was initially erected in 1930, a point that has remained physically marked on the field by a marker of concrete.
44
Annex 6
Annex 6
45
2.- Alignment Marks
The Mixed Commission considers that all of the necessary conditions for the erection of alignment towers have been fulfilled and that, therefore, it may proceed to immediately execute the relevant works.
As for the coordination required to put into service the mentioned alignment marks, the Mixed Commission recommends that the technical bodies of both countries directly undertake to do so.
The present Act was signed in two copies, in Arica, on the twenty-second day of the month of August of nineteen hundred sixty nine.
[signed]
Jorge Velando Ugarteche, Ambassador, Head of the Delegation of Peru
[signed]
Engineer Alejandro Forch Petit, Secretary-General of the Directorate of the Frontiers and Boundaries of the State, Head of the Delegation of Chile
[signed]
Captain Jorge Parra del Riego, Representative of the War Navy of Peru
[signed]
Lieutenant Colonel Rodolfo Gaige Anzardo, Chief of the Photogrametric Department of the Military Geographic Institute of Peru
[signed]
Engineer Ricardo Cepeda Marinkovic, Chief of the International Boundaries Department of the Directorate of the Frontiers and Boundaries of the State of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
[signed]
Lieutenant Commander Jorge del Aguila S., Chief of Geophysics and Oceanographic Department of the Division of Hydrography and Lighthouses of Peru
[signed]
Captain (R) José L. Rivera L.A., Technical Adviser of the Directorate of Hydrography and Lighthouses of Peru
[signed]
Captain (R) Alberto Andrade T., Maritime Consultant of the Directorate of the Frontiers and Boundaries of the State of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
46
Annex 6
Annex 6
47
JOINT REPORT
The undersigned Heads of Delegations of Chile and of Peru submit to their respective Governments the present Report on the state of repair of the boundary markers in the section of the Chile-Peru frontier which they have had the opportunity to inspect on the occasion of the works which they had been instructed to conduct in order to verify the location of Boundary Marker number one and to signal the maritime boundary.
[The undersigned] observed that the steel-made boundary markers numbers two, six, eleven (located in the proximity of the section of the Pan-American highway that crosses both countries) and thirteen, are rusty, especially number two due to its proximity to the sea, and require cleaning and painting.
As regards the concrete-made boundary markers numbers three, four, five, seven, eight, ten, twelve and fourteen, [the undersigned] observed that they lack a base.
The concrete-made Boundary Marker number nine “Concordia”, needs cleaning and painting.
The undersigned consider that they may use the facilities that derive from the next works of installation of the alignment towers, in order that personnel from both countries jointly proceed with the suggested repairs.
Arica, 22 August 1969
[signed] [signed]
Jorge Velande Ugarteche, Engineer Alejandro Forch Petit,
Head of the Delegation of Peru Head of the Delegation of Chile
48
49
Annex 7
Exchange of Notes Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Brazil and the Government of Uruguay on the Definitive Demarcation of the Sea Outlet of the River Chui and the Lateral Maritime Border, signed at Montevideo on 21 July 1972
1120 United Nations, Treaty Series 135
50
Annex 7
Annex 7
51
52
Annex 7
Annex 7
53
54
Annex 7
Annex 7
55
56
Annex 7
Annex 7
57
58
59
Annex 8
Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on the Regulation of the Fishing of
North-East Arctic (Arcto-Norwegian) Cod, signed at London on 15 March 1974
925 United Nations, Treaty Series 3
60
Annex 8
Annex 8
61
62
Annex 8
63
Annex 9
Agreement Concerning Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Co-operation between the Republics of Colombia and Ecuador, signed at Quito on 23 August 1975
996 United Nations, Treaty Series 239
64
Annex 9
Annex 9
65
66
67
Annex 10
Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada,
signed at Washington D.C. on 24 February 1977
1077 United Nations, Treaty Series 55
68
Annex 10
Annex 10
69
70
Annex 10
Annex 10
71
72
73
Annex 11
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Australia
Concerning the Implementation of a Provisional Fisheries
Surveillance and Enforcement Arrangement, signed at Jakarta on
29 October 1981
J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (eds), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II, 1993, p. 1238
74
Annex 11
Annex 11
75
76
Annex 11
Annex 11
77
78
79
Annex 12
Agreement on the Protection of the Marine Environment and the
Coastal Area of the South-East Pacific, signed at Lima on
12 November 1981
1648 United Nations, Treaty Series 3
80
Annex 12
Annex 12
81
82
Annex 12
Annex 12
83
84
Annex 12
Annex 12
85
86
Annex 12
Annex 12
87
88
Annex 12
Annex 12
89
90
Annex 12
Annex 12
91
92
Annex 12
Annex 12
93
94
Annex 12
Annex 12
95
96
Annex 12
Annex 12
97
98
Annex 12
Annex 12
99
100
Annex 12
Annex 12
101
102
Annex 12
103
Annex 13
Protocol for the Protection of the South-East Pacific against Pollution from Land-based Sources, signed at Quito on 22 July 1983
1648 United Nations, Treaty Series 73
104
Annex 13
Annex 13
105
106
Annex 13
Annex 13
107
108
Annex 13
Annex 13
109
110
Annex 13
Annex 13
111
112
Annex 13
Annex 13
113
114
Annex 13
Annex 13
115
116
Annex 13
Annex 13
117
118
Annex 13
Annex 13
119
120
Annex 13
Annex 13
121
122
Annex 13
Annex 13
123
124
Annex 13
Annex 13
125
126
Annex 13
Annex 13
127
128
Annex 13
Annex 13
129
130
Annex 13
Annex 13
131
132
133
Annex 14
Declaration of Viña del Mar of 10 February 1984
CPPS, Convenios, Acuerdos, Protocolos, Declaraciones, Estatuto y Reglamento de la CPPS, 3rd edn, 2007, p. 16
134
Annex 14
16DECLARACIÓN DE VIñA DEL MARViña del Mar, Chile, 10 de febrero de 1984I.- obJETIVoS1.Los Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores de los países miembros de la ComisiónPermanente del Pacífico Sur, Excelentísimos Señores Rodrigo LloredaCaicedo, de Colombia; Jaime del Valle Alliende, de Chile; Luis ValenciaRodríguez, de Ecuador; y Fernando Schwalb López Aldana, de Perú; con lapresencia del Secretario General de la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur,Don Luis Arriaga Mosquera, se reunieron los días 8, 9 y 10 de febrero de 1984en la ciudad de Viña con el propósito de:a)Evaluar los nuevos e importantes acontecimientos de la actividad marítimainternacional, en relación con el desarrollo actual y la futura proyeccióndel Sistema del Pacífico.b)Determinar los lineamientos y cursos de acción, a la luz de los propósitosy principios enunciados en las Declaraciones de Santiago de 1952 y Calide 1981, para hacer frente en forma adecuada y progresiva a loscompromisos y responsabilidades que se derivan del nuevo ordeninternacional marítimo; yc)Adecuar la organización del Sistema del Pacífico Sur en función de lasnuevas responsabilidades y compromisos que debe afrontar.II.- REAFIRMACIÓN DE PRINCIPIoS2.Los Ministros reiteran la determinación de los Estados que integran el SistemaMarítimo del Pacífico Sudeste, de conservar y asegurar los recursos del marque baña sus costas, en virtud de la obligación contraída conjuntamente en laDeclaración de Santiago, de garantizar a sus pueblos las necesarias condicionesde subsistencia y de procurarles los medios para su desarrollo económico.3.En tal virtud, reafirman la soberanía y jurisdicción exclusiva que, para talesefectos y sin perjuicio de la comunidad internacional, proclamaron en laDeclaración de Santiago y que corresponde a sus países sobre el mar que bañasus costas, hasta la distancia de 200 millas marinas al igual que sobre suscorrespondientes plataformas continentales, conforme al Derecho Internacional.4.A este respecto, afirman la indeclinable adhesión de sus respectivos países a losprincipios y propósitos de las Declaraciones de Santiago de 1952 y Cali de1981 y reiteran su determinación de estrechar aún más su solidaridad en ladefensa común de sus derechos, sobre las correspondientes zonas marítimas yrecomendar las acciones que sean necesarias para el cumplimiento de talesobjetivos.
Annex 14
135
[…]
II.- REAFFIRMATION OF PRINCIPLES
2. The Ministers reiterate the determination of the States party to the Maritime System of the South-East Pacific to conserve and safeguard the resources of the sea washing their coasts, by virtue of the obligation jointly undertaken in the Santiago Declaration to ensure the necessary conditions for subsistence to their peoples and to secure the means for their economic development.
3. Therefore, they reaffirm the exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction that, for this purpose and without prejudice to the international community, they proclaimed in the Santiago Declaration, and which pertains to their countries over the sea that washes their coasts, up to a distance of 200 nautical miles and over their corresponding continental shelves, in accordance with International Law.
4. To this respect, they affirm the unwavering adherence of their respective countries to the principles and purposes of the Declarations of Santiago of 1952 and Cali of 1981, and reiterate their determination to further strengthen their solidarity in the common defence of their rights over the corresponding maritime zones, and recommend the necessary actions for the fulfilment of these objectives.
[…]
136
Annex 14
19VIII.- PoLÍTICAS SobRE CoNSERVACIÓN, PRoTECCIÓN y ÓPTIMAUTILIZACIÓN DE LoS RECURSoS VIVoS MARINoS15.Es responsabilidad de los Estados ribereños la conservación y protección de losrecursos vivos contenidos en sus zonas marítimas jurisdiccionales y áreasadyacentes.16.Los Ministros advierten la conveniencia de que sus Gobiernos intercambien,por conducto de la Secretaría General de la CPPS, las informaciones técnico –científicas disponibles y además datos pertinentes para la conservación dedichos recursos y expresen su pleno apoyo a las labores que vienedesarrollando la Comisión Coordinadora de Investigaciones Científicas.17.A solicitud de los Gobiernos la Secretaría General de la CPPS formulará a losEstados Miembros del Sistema las recomendaciones que sean necesarias a finde asegurar la conservación, protección y óptima utilización de los recursoshidrobiológicos.18.Los Ministros reafirman el principio de que corresponde privativamente a cadaEstado fijar las capturas permisibles en sus aguas jurisdiccionales y determinarsu capacidad de captura a fin de contribuir a su desarrollo y satisfacer lasnecesidades alimentarias y nutricionales de sus respectivos pueblos.19.Los Ministros teniendo en consideración que la “Declaración de Cali” de 1981,destacó el propósito de estudiar un entendimiento de los países del Sistema, afin de asegurar la conservación y racional utilización del atún, “recurso de librey soberana disposición de los países ribereños”, concuerdan en que los paísesdel Sistema continúen desarrollando esfuerzos destinados a lograr un acuerdopara la “Conservación, Protección y Óptima Utilización de los Túnidos en elPacífico Oriental”, para lo cual han aprobado, como base de negociación, los“Lineamientos del Convenio para la Conservación, Protección y ÓptimaUtilización de los Túnidos en el Pacífico Oriental”, documento anexo al ActaFinal de la II Reunión de Ministros. Tales Lineamientos deberán serconsiderados para su adecuada complementación por las correspondientesinstancias técnicas y científicas.20.Los Ministros encomiendan a la Secretaría General de la CPPS que, encoordinación con los Estados Partes del Sistema, dé los pasos más adecuados afin de impulsar la más pronta adopción de este Convenio.21.Asimismo, teniendo presente los legítimos intereses que el Nuevo Derecho delMar reconoce a los Estados ribereños, para la conservación y óptima utilizaciónde los recursos marinos más allá de sus zonas marítimas de 200 millas, cuandoestos recursos estén constituidos por las mismas poblaciones existentes en esaszonas, o por poblaciones de especies asociadas a éstas, acuerdan instruir a laSecretaría General de la CPPS, para que se sirva coordinar con las autoridades
Annex 14
137
VIII.- POLICIES ON CONSERVATION, PROTECTION AND OPTIMAL UTILIZATION OF MARINE LIVING RESOURCES
15. The coastal States are responsible for the conservation and protection of the living resources of their jurisdictional maritime zones and adjacent areas.
[…]
18. The Ministers reaffirm the principle that it is exclusively for each State to establish the permissible captures within its jurisdictional waters and to determine the capacity of capture in order to contribute to its development and to satisfy the alimentary and nutritional needs of their respective peoples.
[…]
138
Annex 14
2332.Asimismo, formulan un llamado a los Organismos e InstitucionesInternacionales competentes, para que presten la colaboración técnica yfinanciera que tales propósitos requieren.XIV.- LINEAMIENToS PARA LA ADECUACIÓN DE LA CPPS A SUSNUEVAS NECESIDADES33.Los Ministros encargan a la Secretaría General que prepare, en el transcurso delpresente año, un Plan de Acción que contemple medidas concretas destinadas adar cumplimiento a los objetivos señalados en esta Declaración y, enconcordancia con dicho Plan, prepare también, un nuevo enfoque funcionalpara sus labores. Para este efecto la Secretaría General tendrá como base estaDeclaración y la Resolución correspondiente anexa al Acta de la II Reunión deMinistros.34.La presente Declaración será conocida como “DECLARACIÓN DE VIÑADEL MAR”.En fe de lo cual, los Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores suscriben la presenteDeclaración a los diez días del mes de febrero de 1984.JAIME DEL VALLE ALLIENDEMinistro de Relaciones Exteriores de ChileRODRIGO LLOREDA CAICEDOMinistro de Relaciones Exteriores de ColombiaLUIS VALENCIA RODRIGUEZMinistro de Relaciones Exteriores de EcuadorFERNANDO SCHWALB LÓPEZ ALDANAMinistro de Relaciones Exteriores de Perú
139
Annex 15
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina, signed at Vatican City on 29 November 1984
1399 United Nations, Treaty Series 89
140
Annex 15
Annex 15
141
142
Annex 15
Annex 15
143
144
Annex 15
Annex 15
145
146
Annex 15
Annex 15
147
148
Annex 15
149
Annex 16
Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Co-operation in the Field of Fisheries, signed at Moscow on 12 May 1985
1402 United Nations, Treaty Series 306
150
Annex 16
Annex 16
151
152
Annex 16
Annex 16
153
154
Annex 16
155
Annex 17
Agreement between the Libyan Arab Socialist People’s Jamahariya and the Republic of Tunisia to Implement the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in the
Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf Case, signed at Benghazi on 8 August 1988
J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (eds), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II, 1993, p.1679
156
Annex 17
Annex 17
157
158
159
Annex 18
Protocol for the Conservation and Administration of the Protected Marine and Coastal Areas of the South-East Pacific, signed at Paipa on 21 September 1989
CPPS, Convenios, Acuerdos, Protocolos, Declaraciones, Estatuto y Reglamento de la CPPS, 3rd edn, 2007, p. 191
160
Annex 18
CoMISIÓN PERMANENTE DEL PACÍFICo SURChile – Colombia – Ecuador – PerúCoNVENIoS, ACUERDoS, PRoToCoLoS,DECLARACIoNES, ESTATUTo yREGLAMENTo DE LA CPPSSecretaría GeneralGuayaquil, EcuadorAgosto 2007(3era Edición)
Annex 18
161
191PRoToCoLo PARA LA CoNSERVACIÓN y ADMINISTRACIoN DE LASÁREAS MARINAS y CoSTERAS PRoTEGIDAS DELPACÍFICo SUDESTEPaipa, Colombia, 21 de septiembre de 1989LAS ALTAS PARTES CoNTRATANTESReconociendo la necesidad de adoptar medidas apropiadas para proteger y preservarlos ecosistemas frágiles, vulnerables o de valor natural único, y la fauna y floraamenazados por agotamiento y extinción,Considerando que es de interés común buscar la administración de las zonascosteras, valorando racionalmente el equilibrio que debe existir entre laconservación y el desarrollo,Considerando que es necesario establecer áreas bajo protección con especial énfasisen parques, reservas, santuarios de fauna y flora, y otras categorías de áreasprotegidas,Teniendo presente que es imprescindible regular toda actividad que pueda causarefectos adversos sobre el ecosistema, fauna y flora así como su hábitat, yTeniendo presente el Convenio para la Protección del Medio Marino y la ZonaCostera del Pacífico Sudeste de 1981.HAN ACoRDADo EL SIGUIENTE PRoToCoLo:ARTÍCULo IÁmbito de aplicaciónEl ámbito de aplicación del presente Convenio será el área marítima del Pacíficosudeste dentro de la zona marítima de soberanía y jurisdicción hasta las 200 millasde las Altas Partes Contratantes.Este Convenio se aplica asimismo, a toda la plataforma continental cuando ésta seaextendida por las Altas Partes Contratantes más allá de sus 200 millas.La zona costera, donde se manifiesta ecológicamente la interacción de la tierra, elmar y la atmósfera será determinada por cada Estado Parte, de acuerdo con loscriterios técnicos y científicos pertinentes.ARTÍCULo IIobligaciones generalesLas Altas Partes Contratantes se comprometen, individualmente, o mediante lacooperación bilateral o multilateral, a adoptar las medidas apropiadas de acuerdo
162
Annex 18
192con las disposiciones del presente Protocolo para proteger y preservar losecosistemas frágiles, vulnerables o de valor natural o cultural único, con particularénfasis en la flora y fauna amenazados de agotamiento y extinción, mediante larealización de estudios orientados a las reconstrucción del medio o repoblamiento defauna y flora en casos necesarios.Para este fin las Altas Partes Contratantes deberán establecer bajo su protección, enla forma de parques, reservas, santuarios de fauna y flora u otras categorías de áreasprotegidas. En estas áreas se establecerá un manejo íntegro, sobre la base de estudiose inventarios de sus recursos, con miras al desarrollo sostenido de ellos, prohibiendotoda actividad que pueda causar efectos adversos sobre el ecosistema, fauna y floraasí como su hábitat.ARTÍCULo IIIInformación sobre las áreas protegidasLas Altas Partes Contratantes se comprometen a suministrarse información a travésde la Secretaría Ejecutiva de este Protocolo, respecto de la designación de áreasprotegidas, señalando al efecto los factores que se han tomando en cuenta para dichadeterminación, como la importancia que revisten tales áreas desde el punto de vistacientífico, ecológico, económico, histórico, arqueológico, cultural, educativo,turístico, estético y otros.La información suministrada por las Altas Partes Contratantes, hará referencia a losefectos que pueda tener sobre el ambiente, recursos costeros o su valor.Cada Estado Parte procurará, en la medida de lo posible y antes de establecer susáreas protegidas, intercambiar informaciones sobre el particular, con los demásEstados Partes del Protocolo.Cada Estado Parte, informará a los demás, a través de la Secretaría Ejecutiva, sobrecualquier cambio que efectúe en el origen legal o en la delimitación de sus áreasprotegidas.La Secretaría Ejecutiva deberá llevar al día un catastro de las informacionessuministradas por los Estados Partes respecto de sus áreas protegidas así como de lasmedidas regulatorias que adopten para esas áreas. La Secretaría Ejecutiva transmitiráa las demás Partes, oportunamente, los informes recibidos.ARTÍCULo IVCriterios comunesLas Altas Partes Contratantes adoptarán criterios comunes para el establecimiento deáreas bajo su protección. Para este efecto, si lo consideran conveniente, solicitaránen conjunto o individualmente, la asesoría y cooperación de los organismosinternacionales competentes.
Annex 18
163
193ARTÍCULo VRegulación de actividadesEn las áreas protegidas, cada Alta Parte Contratante establecerá una gestiónambiental integrada dentro de los siguientes lineamientos:a)Establecer un manejo de la fauna y flora, acorde con las característicaspropias de las áreas protegidas;b)Prohibir las actividades relacionadas con la exploración y explotaciónminera del suelo y subsuelo del área protegida;c)Regular toda actividad científica, arqueológica o turística en dicha área;d)Regular el comercio que afecte la fauna, la flora y su hábitat en el áreaprotegida;e)En general, prohibir cualquier actividad que pueda causar efectosadversos sobre las especies, ecosistemas o procesos biológicos queprotegen tales áreas, así como sobre su carácter de patrimonio nacional:científico, ecológico, económico, histórico, cultural, arqueológico oturístico.ARTÍCULo VIZonas de amortiguaciónLas Altas Partes Contratantes establecerán, alrededor de las áreas protegidas, zonasde amortiguación, cuando ellas no existan, en las cuales los usos puedan serregulados con el fin de asegurar el cumplimiento de los propósitos del presenteProtocolo.ARTÍCULo VIIMedidas para prevenir, reducir y controlar la contaminaciónde las áreas protegidasLas Altas Partes tomarán, individual o conjuntamente, todas las medidas paraprevenir o reducir y controlar el deterioro ambiental, incluyendo la contaminaciónen las áreas protegidas, proveniente de cualquier fuente de actividad, esforzándosepara armonizar sus políticas al respecto.Dichas medidas incluirán, entre otras, las destinadas a:1.Prohibir el vertimiento de sustancias tóxicas, perjudiciales o nocivasespecialmente las de carácter persistente, procedentes de fuentes terrestres,incluidos los ríos, estuarios, tuberías y estructuras de desagüe, desde laatmósfera, o a través de ella.2.Prevenir, reducir y controlar, en el mayor grado posible:
164
Annex 18
194a)La contaminación causada por buques, incluyendo medidas para preveniraccidentes y hacer frente a casos de emergencia y prevenir el vertimiento,sea o no intencional;b)El manejo y transporte de sustancias peligrosas;c)La introducción de especies de flora y fauna exóticas, incluyendotransplantes; y,d)Otras actividades susceptibles de producir deterioro ambiental.ARTÍCULo VIIIEvaluación del impacto ambientalLas Altas Partes Contratantes efectuarán la evaluación del impacto ambiental detoda acción que pueda generar efectos adversos sobre las áreas protegidas,estableciendo un procedimiento de análisis integrado sobre el particular.Intercambiarán asimismo información sobre las actividades alternativas o medidasque se sugieran, a fin de evitar tales efectos.ARTÍCULo IXInvestigación científica, técnica, educación ambientaly participación comunitariaLas Altas Partes Contratantes fomentarán la investigación científica, técnica, laeducación ambiental y la participación comunitaria, como base para la conservacióny administración de las áreas protegidas.ARTÍCULo XNormas de cooperaciónLas Altas Partes Contratantes procurarán, a través de la Secretaría Ejecutiva de esteProtocolo, cooperar en la administración y conservación de las áreas protegidas,intercambiando al efecto información sobre los programas e investigacionesdesarrolladas en ellas, y las experiencias recogidas por cada una de éstas, enparticular, en los ámbitos científicos, legales y administrativos. El SecretarioEjecutivo podrá también solicitar esta información de las Universidades y entidadesespecializadas en los Estados Partes del presente Protocolo, a través de los PuntosFocales.Las Altas Partes Contratantes directamente, o por conducto de la SecretaríaEjecutiva, promoverán programas de asistencia científica, técnica, legal, educativa, yde otra índole para las áreas protegidas.Esta asistencia comprenderá, entre otros:i.Formación de personal científico y técnico;ii.Participación en los programas respectivos;iii.Provisión de expertos y equipos;
Annex 18
165
195iv.Prestación de facilidades y servicios de asesoramiento para programas deinvestigación, vigilancia, educación, turismo y otros.v.Organización de un archivo técnico de la legislación especializada en cadauno de los Estados Partes;vi.Difusión de la información especializada sobre las áreas protegidas.ARTÍCULo XIEducación ambientalLas Altas Partes Contratantes fomentarán la educación ambiental y la participacióncomunitaria en la conservación y manejo de las áreas protegidas.ARTÍCULo XIIAutoridades de las áreas protegidasLas Altas Partes Contratantes se comprometen a proporcionar, a través de laSecretaría Ejecutiva, información sobre:a)La organización y autoridades nacionales competentes en laadministración de las áreas protegidas.b)Programas de investigación en las áreas protegidas.ARTÍCULo XIIICumplimiento y sancionesCada Alta Parte Contratante se obliga a velar por el cumplimiento de lasdisposiciones del presente Protocolo y adoptar las medidas legales y administrativasa su alcance para prevenir o sancionar cualquier actividad que viole estasdisposiciones.Las Altas Partes informarán a la Secretaría Ejecutiva sobre las medidas adoptadaspara la aplicación de las disposiciones del párrafo precedente.ARTÍCULo XIVReuniones de las Altas Partes contratantesLas Altas Partes Contratantes efectuarán reuniones ordinarias por lo menos cada dosaños o extraordinarias en cualquier momento, cuando dos o más de ellas así losoliciten. Estas reuniones serán convocadas por la Secretaría Ejecutiva.En las reuniones ordinarias las Altas partes Contratantes adoptarán Resolucionescomo consecuencia del análisis, entre otros, de los siguientes aspectos:a)El grado de cumplimiento del presente Protocolo y la eficacia de lasmedidas adoptadas, así como la necesidad de desarrollar otro tipo deactividades en cumplimiento de los objetivos de este Protocolo;
166
Annex 18
196b)La necesidad de enmiendas o reformas de este Protocolo, así como laconveniencia de ampliar o modificar las resoluciones adoptadas en virtudde él;c)El desarrollo de cualquier otra función que pueda resultar de beneficiopara el cumplimiento de los propósitos de este Protocolo.Las Altas Partes Contratantes procurarán integrar a las autoridades responsables delas áreas protegidas como entidades técnicas asesoras, en las reuniones que celebren.ARTÍCULo XVSecretaría Ejecutiva del ProtocoloPara los efectos de administración y operación del presente Protocolo, las AltasPartes Contratantes, convienen en designar a la Secretaría General de la ComisiónPermanente del Pacífico Sur CPPS, como Secretaría Ejecutiva del mismo. LasPartes, en su primera reunión, examinarán la forma y financiamiento para eldesarrollo de esta función, por parte de la Comisión.ARTÍCULo XVIVigenciaEl presente Protocolo entrará en vigor 60 días después del depósito del tercerinstrumento de ratificación en la Secretaría General de la Comisión Permanente delPacífico Sur – CPPS.ARTÍCULo XVIIDenunciaEl presente Protocolo podrá ser denunciado por cualquier de las Altas PartesContratantes dos años después de entrar en vigencia para la Parte que lo denuncie.La denuncia se efectuará mediante notificación, escrita a la Secretaría Ejecutiva quela comunicará de inmediato a las Altas Partes Contratantes.La denuncia producirá efecto a los 180 días de la referida notificación.ARTÍCULo XVIIIEnmiendasEl presente Protocolo sólo podrá ser enmendado por unanimidad de las Altas PartesContratantes. Las enmiendas estarán sujetas a ratificación y entrarán en vigor unavez que se haya depositado el tercer instrumento de ratificación en la SecretaríaEjecutiva.
Annex 18
167
197ARTÍCULo XIXAdhesiónEl presente Protocolo estará abierto a la adhesión de cualquier Estado Ribereño delPacífico Sudeste.La adhesión se efectuará mediante el depósito del respectivo instrumento en laSecretaría Ejecutiva que lo comunicará a las Altas Partes Contratantes.El presente Protocolo entrará en vigor para el Estado que adhiera 60 días después deldepósito del respectivo instrumento.ARTÍCULo XXReservasEl Presente Protocolo no admitirá reservas.Hecho en siete ejemplares del mismo tenor, uno de los cuales se depositará en laSecretaría General de la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur –CPPS, todosigualmente válidos para los efectos de su aplicación e interpretación.En fe de lo cual se firma en Paipa, Colombia, a los veintiún (21) días del mes deseptiembre de mil novecientos ochenta y nueve (1989).PEDRO OYARCEPor la República de ChileARTURO GÁLVEZ V.Por la República de ColombiaFERNANDO CÓRDOVAPor la República de EcuadorIVAN ESTRIBÍPor la República de PanamáJAVIER PULGAR VIDALPor la República de PerúRATIFICACIoNES:CHILE:Depósito del instrumento de ratificación mediante Nota Nº 025131 del 16de diciembre de 1993.CoLoMbIA:Fecha de depósito de instrumento de ratificación: 18 de agosto de1999.
168
Annex 18
198ECUADoR: Fecha de depósito de instrumento de ratificación: 25 de noviembre de1994.PANAMÁ:Ley N° 11, expedida por la Asamblea Legislativa el 18 de junio de 1991(Gaceta Oficial N° 21814 del 24 de junio de 1991). Fecha de depósito delinstrumento de ratificación: 8 de agosto de 1991. Se aplica por extensión a losestados Latinoamericanos ribereños del Pacífico Oriental.PERÚ:R.L. N° 26468 del 26 de junio de 1995. Fecha de depósito del instrumentode ratificación: 18 de agosto de 1995.
Annex 18
169
PROTOCOL FOR THE CONSERVATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROTECTED MARINE AND COASTAL AREAS OF THE SOUTH-EAST PACIFIC
[…]
ArticleRTICLE I
Scope of Application
The scope of application of the present Agreement shall be the maritime area of the South-East Pacific within the maritime zone of sovereignty and jurisdiction of 200 miles of the High Contracting Parties.
This Agreement also applies to the entire continental shelf when it is extended by the High Contracting Parties beyond their 200 miles.
[…]
170
171
Annex 19
Protocol for the Protection of the South-East Pacific against Radioactive Contamination, signed at Paipa on 21 September 1989
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
172
Annex 19
Annex 19
173
174
Annex 19
Annex 19
175
176
Annex 19
Annex 19
177
178
Annex 19
Annex 19
179
Protocol for the Protecti on of the South -East Pacific against Radi oactive ContaminatiNTAMINATIon
[…]
ArticleRTICLE I
Scope of Application
The scope of application of the present Agreement shall be the maritime area of the South-East Pacific within the maritime zone of sovereignty and jurisdiction of 200 miles of the High Contracting Parties.
This Agreement also applies to the entire continental shelf when it is extended by the High Contracting Parties beyond their 200 miles.
[…]
ArticleRTICLE VII
Monitoring programmes
The High Contracting Parties, directly or in collaboration with the Executive Secretariat or the relevant international organizations, shall establish individual or joint monitoring programmes of the geographical area covered by this Agreement.
For this purpose, the High Contracting Parties will designate the authorities responsible for surveillance within their respective maritime zones of sovereignty and jurisdiction, and will participate, to the extent possible, in international agreements to this effect, in areas outside the limits of their sovereignty and jurisdiction.
[…]
180
181
Annex 20
Protocol on the Programme for Regional Study of the Phenomenon “El Niño” in the South-East Pacific, signed at Callao on 6 November 1992
CPPS, Convenios, Acuerdos, Protocolos, Declaraciones, Estatuto y Reglamento de la CPPS, 3rd edn, 2007, p. 103
182
Annex 20
CoMISIÓN PERMANENTE DEL PACÍFICo SURChile – Colombia – Ecuador – PerúCoNVENIoS, ACUERDoS, PRoToCoLoS,DECLARACIoNES, ESTATUTo yREGLAMENTo DE LA CPPSSecretaría GeneralGuayaquil, EcuadorAgosto 2007(3era Edición)
Annex 20
183
103PRoToCoLo SobRE EL PRoGRAMA PARA EL ESTUDIo REGIoNALDEL FENÓMENo EL NIño EN EL PACÍFICo SUDESTE (ERFEN)Callao, Perú, 6 de noviembre de 1992Los Gobiernos de los Estados Miembros de la Comisión Permanente del PacíficoSur (CPPS), Colombia, Chile, Ecuador y Perú, debidamente representados,CoNSIDERANDo:Que la Declaración de Santiago del 18 de agosto de 1952 sobre Zona Marítima y lacreación de la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur resaltan la importancia delmedio marino para el desarrollo de sus pueblos y la necesidad de una explotaciónracional de sus recursos;Que en el ámbito del Pacífico Sudeste se producen en forma recurrente fenómenosocéano-atmosféricos conocidos como El Niño y otros que afectan considerablementelas condiciones económicas y sociales de sus pueblos, por pérdida en la producciónpesquera, la agricultura, la industria, las comunicaciones y la infraestructura costera,entre otras;Que estos fenómenos ocasionan también efectos positivos en algunos sectores delecosistema marino y terrestre;Que, asimismo, existen condiciones de características opuestas a El Niño quepueden tener repercusiones de diverso orden, al mejorar el desarrollo de unosrecursos en el mar, frenar el de otros o favorecer algunos tipos de agricultura;Que los cambios océano-atmosféricos precitados, en sus orígenes y consecuencias,trascienden las fronteras de los países ribereños y llegan a tener alcances globales;Que tal circunstancia obliga a una cooperación internacional para comprender susmecanismos y poder predecirlos en beneficio de una planificación previsora de susefectos económicos, sociales y conexos;Que la recurrencia del fenómeno El Niño en el Pacífico Sudeste, con marcadosefectos socio-económicos, llevó en 1974 a los países que conforman la CPPS a laconstitución del Programa Estudio Regional del Fenómeno El Niño (ERFEN), quefunciona con la participación de las instituciones de investigación de los paísesmiembros, la coordinación de la CPPS y el apoyo de otras organizacionesinternacionales;Que la meta básica del ERFEN es la de poder predecir los cambios oceánico-atmosféricos, con anticipación suficiente para permitir políticas de adaptación o deemergencia frente a variaciones en el rendimiento pesquero, agrícola e industrial ydecisiones de mercadeo, manejo de recursos hidrobiológicos y otras;
184
Annex 20
104Que el desenvolvimiento del Programa ERFEN ha probado su bondad para generaren la región un desarrollo coordinado de las ciencias oceánicas y atmosféricas y hamostrado su potencialidad para la aplicación práctica de pronósticos de lavariabilidad climática y de los recursos pesqueros, así como para programas deprevisión de catástrofes;Que los Ministros de Relaciones Exteriores del los Estados Miembros de la CPPS,expresaron en la “Declaración de Quito”, suscrita el 10 de diciembre de 1987, “lanecesidad de fortalecer el Estudio Regional del Fenómeno El Niño como una de lasactividades prioritarias de cooperación regional, dotándole de un adecuado marcoinstitucional, de acuerdo con las disponibilidades financieras y complementándolocon programas prácticos que posibiliten a los países la previsión y reacción ante lapresencia de fenómenos naturales de impacto económico y social como El Niño”;HAN CoNVENIDo Lo SIGUIENTE:ARTÍCULo ICaracterísticas del programa ERFEN1.Las Partes convienen, en virtud del presente Protocolo, en institucionalizar yconsolidar un programa integral y multidisciplinario para el Estudio Regionaldel Fenómeno El Niño (ERFEN), en los campos meteorológicos,oceanográficos (físico y químico), biológico-marino, biológico-pesquero, decapacitación y socio-económico, y procurarán obtener de este Programaresultados integrados, con aplicación práctica.2.Asimismo, se comprometen a desarrollar Planes de Acción Científicos,renovables, de acuerdo al Programa integral. Se ejecutarán tales Planes enconcordancia con los objetivos y las estrategias contempladas en dichoPrograma y con el presente Protocolo.ARTÍCULo IIÁrea de aplicación1.El ámbito de aplicación del Programa ERFEN es el área de influencia delfenómeno de El Niño y otras anomalías, tanto en la zona marítima sometida a lasoberanía y jurisdicción de los Estados Partes hasta las 200 millas, como en susterritorios continental e insular.2.Las Partes extenderán la aplicación de este Programa, fuera de dicho ámbito,según los requerimientos de la investigación del fenómeno El Niño y otrasanomalías.3.Las Partes concertarán por medio de la Unidad Ejecutiva y de Coordinación deeste Programa, los arreglos que fueren necesarios a tal efecto con otros Estados,organizaciones y programas internacionales.
Annex 20
185
105ARTÍCULo IIIobligaciones generalesLas Partes se obligan entre sí, en virtud del presente Protocolo, a:a)Apoyar individualmente y por medio de la cooperación bilateral ymultilateral el Programa Estudio Regional el Fenómeno El Niño (ERFEN)y consecuentemente las investigaciones oceánico-atmosféricas yclimáticas básicas que se refieren a cambios en el mediano y largo plazo;así como los impactos producidos por tales cambios;b)Colaborar en la concertación y aplicación de los acuerdos que seannecesarios para la adopción de normas y procedimientos que permitan lamás amplia aplicación de este Programa;c)Cooperar en el plano regional, a través de los Comités Nacionales delERFEN, en la formulación, adopción y aplicación de programas ymétodos de trabajo que permitan una adecuada interpretación y aplicaciónde los datos e informaciones que se obtengan; yd)Desplegar los esfuerzos a su alcance, a través de las institucionesespecializadas de cada país, para proporcionar al Programa personalcientífico, técnico y administrativo, operación de buques de investigación,infraestructura para las investigaciones y para capacitación; así comoapoyo para las reuniones del Programa ERFEN.ARTÍCULo IVVigilancia y predicción del fenómeno El Niño yevaluación de sus efectos socioeconómicosA tales efectos, las Partes se obligan igualmente, a participar:a)En las actividades de vigilancia integrada a la que se refiere el artículosiguiente; así como en la predicción oceánico-climática y en los estudiosbiológico-marinos y biológico-pesqueros que permitan detectar, en formatemprana, cambios en la composición y abundancia de las comunidadesbiológicas; yb)En las actividades de evaluación y previsión de los impactos ocasionadospor El Niño y otras anomalías en los ámbitos marítimo y terrestre para losefectos de la planificación socioeconómica correspondiente.ARTÍCULo VVigilancia integradaLa vigilancia integrada comprenderá básicamente las siguientes actividades:
186
Annex 20
114ARTÍCULo XXIIIDepositario1.La Secretaría General de la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur es eldepositario del presente Protocolo y de sus enmiendas, así como de susinstrumentos de ratificación, adhesión y denuncia.2.El depositario distribuirá a las Partes el texto auténtico de este Protocolo y desus enmiendas y lo registrará en la Secretaría de las Naciones Unidas.ARTÍCULo XXIVDisposiciones transitorias1.El Programa ERFEN continuará desarrollándose, de conformidad con lasnormas y con la estructura que actualmente lo rigen, hasta que entre en vigoreste Protocolo.2.Continuarán, asimismo, ejecutándose los convenios y proyectos para dichoPrograma, en actual desarrollo, concertados por la CPPS con otrasorganizaciones internacionales.3.La UEC-ERFEN gestionará para ellos los ajustes que pudiere requerir la mejorejecución del Programa con la vigencia del presente Protocolo.En fe de lo cual, los Plenipotenciarios debidamente autorizados por sus respectivosGobiernos, suscriben el presente Protocolo, a bordo del buque de investigacióncientífica Peruano “Humboldt”, en el Puerto del Callao, el seis de noviembre de milnovecientos noventa y dos.Por el Gobierno de CHILEMinistro Consejero Mario Cademartori InvernizziPor el Gobierno de COLOMBIAEmbajador Jaime Pinzón LópezPor el Gobierno del ECUADORMinistro Mentor VillagómezPor el Gobierno del PERÚEmbajador Alfonso Arias-Schreiber P.RATIFICACIoNES:CHILE:Decreto N° 1562 del 9 de noviembre de 1995. Fecha de depósito delinstrumento de ratificación: 28 de septiembre de 1995.
Annex 20
187
Protocol on the Programme for Regi onal Stud y of the Phen omen on “El Niño” in the South -East Pacific (ERFEN)
[…]
The Governments of the Member States of the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific (CPPS), Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru, duly represented,
CONSIDERING:
That the Santiago Declaration of 18 August 1952 on the Maritime Zone and the creation of the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific highlight the importance of the marine environment for the development of their peoples and the necessity for a rational exploitation of their resources;
[…]
ARTICLE II
Scope of Application
1. The scope of application of the ERFEN Programme [for the Regional Study of the Phenomenon of El Niño] is the area of influence of the phenomenon of El Niño and other anomalies, both in the maritime zone under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State Parties up to 200 miles, and in their continental and insular territories.
2. The Parties will extend the application of this Programme outside this area, according to the requirements of the investigation of the phenomenon of El Niño and other anomalies.
3. The Parties will conclude, by means of the Executive and Coordination Unit of this Programme, the arrangements with other States, organizations and international programmes that are necessary for this purpose.
[…]
188
189
Annex 21
Final Minutes of Understanding of the Fourth Bilateral Meeting between the Commanders of the Frontier Naval Zones of
Chile and Peru, 13 July 1995
Archives of the Chilean Navy
190
Annex 21
Annex 21
191
192
Annex 21
Annex 21
193
194
Annex 21
Annex 21
195
[Transcript]
ActaCTA final de entendimient o
[…]
Durante las conversaciones se llegaron a los siguientes entendimientos :
Primero: Respecto del tema “Procedimiento para el intercambio de naves pesqueras chilenas o peruanas, sorprendidas en faenas de pesca al norte o al sur de la Zona Especial Fronteriza Marítima (Z.E.F.M.) respectivamente, entre el Capitán de Puerto de Ilo y el Gobernador Marítimo de Arica”, se expuso el trabajo elaborado por la delegación de Chile, recibiéndose los comentarios de la delegación de Perú. El tema se recibió como propuesta y figura en Anexo “A”.
[…]
ANEXO “A”
Planteamiento de la Comandancia en Jefe de la IVa. Zona Naval sobre “Procedimiento para el intercambio de naves pesqueras Chilenas o Peruanas, sorprendidas en faenas de pesca al norte o al sur de la Zona Especial Fronteriza Marítima (Z.E.F.M.) entre el Capitán de Puerto de Ilo y Gobernador Marítimo de Arica”.
[…]
I.- Informaciones:
1. De acuerdo al Convenio sobre Zona Especial Fronteriza Marítima de la referencia, se delimita una zona a partir de las 12 millas náuticas de la costa y de 10 millas náuticas de cada lado del paralelo que constituye el límite marítimo entre los dos países.
[…]
III.- Procedimiento:
1. En caso de detectarse una embarcación menor de nacionalidad peruano/chilena en aguas jurisdiccionales de otro país, se deberán aplicar los procedimientos correspondientes según las diferentes variables que se presenten y que se detallan a continuación:
1.1 Embarcación menor a más de 12 millas de costa y menos de 10 millas al Sur o Norte del L.P.I.
196
Annex 21
- Se deberá determinar la posición exacta en que se encuentra la embarcación, de acuerdo a lo señalado en la referencia escoltándola hasta que abandone las aguas jurisdiccionales chilenas o peruanas cerciorándose que haya sobrepasado el L.P.I.
Annex 21
197
[Translation]
Final Minutes of UnderstandingNDERSTANDING
[…]
During the course of the discussions, the following understandings were reached:
First: In relation to the matter “Procedure for the exchange of Chilean or Peruvian fishing boats apprehended undertaking fishing activities to the north or to the south of the Special Maritime Frontier Zone (S.M.F.Z.), between the Harbour Master of Ilo and the Maritime Governor of Arica”, the work done by the Chilean Delegation was presented and the comments of the Peruvian Delegation were received. The matter was received as a proposal and appears in Annex “A”.
[…]
Annex “A”
Proposal of the Commander in Chief of the Fourth Naval Zone on “Procedure for the exchange of Chilean or Peruvian fishing boats, apprehended undertaking fishing activities to the north or to the south of the Special Maritime Frontier Zone (S.M.F.Z.), between the Harbour Master of Ilo and the Maritime Governor of Arica”.
[…]
I. Information:
1. In accordance with the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone referred to above, an area is delimited starting from 12 nautical miles off the coast and of 10 nautical miles on either side of the parallel which constitutes the maritime boundary between the two countries.
[…]
III. Procedure:
1. In the case of detection of a small vessel of Peruvian/Chilean nationality in jurisdictional waters of the other country, the following procedures must be applied according to the different variables set out in detail below:
1.1 Small vessel more than 12 miles off the coast and less than 10 miles to the South or the North of the L.P.I. [Límite Político Internacional – International Political Boundary]
198
Annex 21
- The exact position where the vessel was found must be determined in accordance with the agreement referred to above. It must be escorted until it exits the Chilean/Peruvian jurisdictional waters, ensuring that it has crossed the L.P.I. [Límite Político Internacional – International Political Boundary]
199
Annex 22
Interim Accord between Greece and the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, signed at New York on 13 September 1995
1891 United Nations, Treaty Series 3
200
Annex 22
Annex 22
201
202
Annex 22
Annex 22
203
204
Annex 22
Annex 22
205
206
Annex 22
Annex 22
207
208
Annex 22
209
Annex 23
Act of Brasilia, signed by the Presidents of Peru and Ecuador at Brasilia on 26 October 1998
Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru
210
Annex 23
Acta de Brasilia, del 26 de Octubre de 1998Página 1/4:Página 2/4:
Annex 23
211
In the city of Brasilia, on 26 October 1998, their Excellencies Jamil Mahuad Witt, President of the Republic of Ecuador and Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, President of the Republic of Peru, met to formally record the definitive conclusion of the differences which have separated their two countries for decades.
Present, in their capacity as Heads of State of the Guarantor Countries of the Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 29 January 1942, were Their Excellencies, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, President of the Federal Republic of Brazil, Carlos S. Menem, President of the Republic of Argentina, Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, President of the Republic of Chile and the Personal Representative of the President of the United States of America, Mr. Thomas F. McLarty III.
[...]
212
Annex 23
Página 3/4:[...]
2. It is hereby declared that, along with the binding view expressed by the Heads of State of the Guarantor Countries in their letter dated 23 October 1998, which forms an integral part of this document, the boundary disputes between the two countries are definitively resolved. On this basis, [the signatory countries] leave a record of the firm and unwavering will of their respective Governments to complete, with the shortest possible delay, the marking on the ground of their common land frontier.
[...]
Annex 23
213
Página 4/4:[...]
5. Wishing to emphasize their appreciation towards the fundamental role played in the attainment of these understandings by the Governments of the Republic of Argentina,
214
Annex 23
the Federal Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Chile and the United States of America, Guarantors of the Protocol of Peace, Friendship and Boundaries signed in Rio de Janeiro on 29 January 1942, the Presidents of Ecuador and Peru keep a record of their Nations’ appreciation for the dedication and effort made to comply with the Protocol and will urge them to continue to fulfil this function until the completion of the demarcation.
[...]
215
Annex 24
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Peru and the Government of the Republic of Chile for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed at Lima on 2 February 2000
Website of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
216
Annex 24
1CONVENIO ENTRE EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPUBLICA DEL PERU YEL GOBIERNO DE LAREPUBLICA DE CHILE PARA LA PROMOCION Y PROTECCION RECIPROCA DE LASINVERSIONESEl Gobierno de la República del Perú y el Gobierno de la República de Chile, en adelante "las PartesContratantes";Deseando intensificar la cooperación económica en beneficio mutuo de ambos Estados;Con intención de crear y mantener condiciones favorables a las inversiones de inversionistas de unaParte Contratante en el territorio de la otra que impliquen transferencias de capitales;Reconociendo la necesidad de promover y de proteger las inversiones extranjeras con miras a favorecerla prosperidad económica de ambos Estados;HAN CONVENIDO LO SIGUIENTE:ARTÍCULO 1DEFINICIONESPara los efectos del presente Convenio:1. El término "inversionista" designa, para cada una de las Partes Contratantes, a los siguientes sujetosque hayan efectuado o efectúen inversiones en el territorio de la otra Parte Contratante conforme alpresente Convenio:(a) Las personas naturales que, de acuerdo con la legislación de esa Parte Contratante, sonconsideradas nacionales de la misma;(b) Las entidades jurídicas, incluyendo sociedades, corporaciones, asociaciones comerciales o cualquierotra entidad constituida o debidamente organizada de otra manera según la legislación de esa ParteContratante, que tenga su sede, así como sus actividades económicas reales, en el territorio de dichaParte Contratante;(c) Las entidades jurídicas constituidas conforme a la legislación de cualquier país, que fuerenefectivamente controladas por inversionistas señalados en los literales a) y b) anteriores.2. El término "inversión" se refiere a cualquier clase de bien, siempre que la inversión se haya efectuadode conformidad con las leyes y reglamentos de la Parte Contratante en cuyo territorio se realizó lainversión e incluirá, en particular, aunque no exclusivamente:a) Los bienes muebles e inmuebles, así como todos los demás derechos reales, tales comoservidumbres, hipotecas, usufructos, prendas;b) Las acciones, cuotas sociales y cualquier otro tipo de participación en sociedades;b) Los créditos, valores, derechos sobre dineros y cualquier otra prestación que tenga valor económico;c) Derechos de propiedad intelectual e industrial, incluidos derechos de autor, patentes, marcascomerciales, nombres comerciales, procesos y conocimientos tecnológicos, derechos de llave y otrosderechos similares;e) Concesiones comerciales otorgadas por la ley o en virtud de un contrato, incluidas concesiones paraexplorar, cultivar, extraer o explotar recursos naturales.3."Territorio"designa, además de las áreas enmarcadas en los límites terrestres, las zonas marítimasadyacentes y el espacio aéreo en los cuales las Partes Contratantes ejercen soberanía y jurisdicción, deacuerdo a sus respectivas legislaciones y al derecho internacional.
Annex 24
217
AGREEMENT between the Government of the Repu blic of Peru and the Government of the Repu blic of Chile for the RECIPROCAL pr omoti on and pr otecti on of investments
The Government of the Republic of Peru and the Government of the Republic of Chile, hereunder “the Contracting Parties”;
Wishing to intensify the economic cooperation in the mutual interest of both States;
With the will to create and maintain favourable conditions for the investments of investors of a Contracting Party in the territory of the other implying transfers of capital;
Recognizing the necessity to promote and protect foreign investments in view to promote the economic prosperity of both States;
HAVE AGREED THE FOLLOWING
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
[…]
3. “Territory” designates, in addition to the areas located within the land boundaries, the adjacent maritime zones and the air space in which the Contracting Parties exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction, in compliance with their respective legislations and international law.
218
219
Annex 25
Framework Agreement for the Conservation of the Living
Marine Resources on the High Seas of the South-East Pacific,
signed at Santiago on 14 August 2000 (not in force) (also known
as the “Galápagos Agreement”)
Permanent Commission of the South Pacific
220
Annex 25
Annex 25
221
222
Annex 25
Annex 25
223
224
Annex 25
Annex 25
225
226
Annex 25
Annex 25
227
228
Annex 25
Annex 25
229
The coastal States of the South-East Pacific, members of the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific (CPPS) and other interested States,
WHEREAS:
With the purpose of securing the conservation and proper use of the natural resources off their coasts, the coastal States of the South-East Pacific, through the 1952 Santiago Declaration, proclaimed their sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction on a maritime zone of 200 miles, and laid the foundations for the acceptance and configuration of this area as one of the fundamental elements of the new Law of the Sea;
The Santiago Declaration also recognized the coastal States’ duty to prevent, outside the scope of its jurisdiction, an excessive exploitation of the natural resources from occurring, which may endanger its existence, integrity and conservation, to the detriment of the people for whom the seas constitute their irreplaceable sources of livelihood;
[…]
Article 1
Terms used
1. For the purpose of this Framework Agreement, it will be understood for:
[…]
1.7 “area of application of the Agreement”, that which is established in article 3.
1.8 “zones under national jurisdiction”, those subject to the rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal States up to the limit of 200 nautical miles, measured from the baselines, including the jurisdictional zones belonging to the insular territories located beyond the limit of the continental maritime zones.
[…]
Article 3
Area of application
1. The Framework Agreement will exclusively apply to the high seas areas of the South-East Pacific between the outer limits of the areas under the national jurisdiction of the costal States and a line drawn along the meridian 120º longitude west, from the parallel 5º latitude north until the parallel 60º latitude south. It does not include the areas under national jurisdiction corresponding to the oceanic islands belonging to any of the coastal States, but it will apply to areas of high seas surrounding or adjacent to these oceanic islands within the limits described.
230
Annex 25
2. Notwithstanding the provisions in paragraph 1, the additional instruments may refer to other areas of application, according to the nature, characteristics, movement and ecological relationships of the fish schools thereby regulated.
[…]
Article 15
Savings clause
None of the provisions of this Agreement will prejudge, affect or modify the positions of the States Parties with respect to the nature, the limits or the extent of their respective zones under national jurisdiction, or their positions in relation to international instruments on these matters.
[…]
Article 18
Reservations and declarations
This Agreement may not be subject to reservations. However, at the time of signature, ratification or accession, any State concerned may make interpretative declarations, provided that such declarations are not intended to exclude or modify the legal effects of the provisions of the Agreement in its application to the State which formulates it.
[…]
[Signed]
MARIA SOLEDAD ALVEAR VALENZUELA
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
[Signed]
GUILLERMO FERNANDEZ
DE SOTO
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia
[Signed]
HEINZ MOELLER FREILE
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
[Signed]
FERNANDO DE TRAZEGNIES GRANDA
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru
231
Annex 26
Minutes of the Fifteenth Roundtable Discussions between the High Commands of the Armed Forces of Chile and Peru, signed by the Chief of Staff of the National Defence Force of Chile and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force of Peru on
29 September 2000
Archives of the Chilean Navy
232
Annex 26
Annex 26
233
234
Annex 26
Annex 26
235
236
Annex 26
Annex 26
237
[…]
SIXTH UNDERSTANDING
The Peruvian Navy and the Chilean Navy, through their respective maritime authorities, will establish the necessary procedure in order to exchange information on maritime traffic control within the waters under the jurisdiction of each country.
The initial coordination will be accomplished through the respective representatives during the roundtable discussions between the High Commands.
[…]
238
Annex 26
Annex 26
239
240
241
Annex 27
Agreement on Provisional Arrangements for the Delimitation of
the Maritime Boundary between the Republic of Tunisia and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed at Algiers on
11 February 2002
2238 United Nations, Treaty Series 207
242
Annex 27
Annex 27
243
244
Annex 27
245
Annex 28
Final Minutes of Understanding of the Eleventh Bilateral Meeting between the Commanders of the Frontier Naval Zones of Chile and Peru, 16 August 2002
Archives of the Chilean Navy
246
Annex 28
Annex 28
247
FINAL MINUTES OF UNDERSTANDING
In the city of Arequipa, Peru, between 12 and 16 August 2002, the Naval Delegations of Peru and Chile met under the leadership of the Commander of the Third Naval Zone of the Peruvian Navy, Rear Admiral José Mejía Gonzalo, to participate in the Eleventh bilateral meeting of the Commanders of the frontier naval zones of Peru and Chile.
[…]
248
Annex 28
Annex 28
249
250
Annex 28
Annex 28
251
252
Annex 28
Annex 28
253
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FORMULATION OF A COMMON BILATERAL STRATEGY TO ENABLE FUTURE OPERATIONS AGAINST ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT AT SEA
[…]
3) Criteria
[…]
254
Annex 28
Annex 28
255
c) The following procedure and general scope should be taken into consideration in relation to the naval patrols that will participate in the operations against illegal activities:
- In case of suspicion or certainty of illicit traffic by sea, the Maritime Authorities of Ilo (Peru) and Arica (Chile) will communicate through the established channels in order to facilitate the action by patrol boats, with the purpose of arresting these boats in their respective waters of jurisdictional responsibility, in addition to implementing the procedures to board, inspect and detain vessels that engage in such acts.
- In case the offending vessel trespasses into the waters of the other State, the pursuing unit will limit itself to keeping sight or radar contact, in order to transfer the information to the unit of the other State that has been designated to continue and complete the procedure in its jurisdictional area.
[…]
256
Annex 28
257
Annex 29
Final Minutes of Understanding of the Twelfth Bilateral
Meeting between the Commanders of the Frontier Naval Zones of Chile and Peru
between 21 and 25 July 2003
Archives of the Chilean Navy
258
Annex 29
Annex 29
259
260
Annex 29
Annex 29
261
262
Annex 29
Annex 29
263
[…]
C. - Points on which no agreement wasWAS reached :
1. For the reasons set out [below], the Delegation of the Navy of Peru requests that the indicated agreements in force be set aside. The Delegation of the Navy of Chile considers that these agreements should not be altered because they are not modifiable at the level of the meeting of the Commanders of frontier naval zones.
[…]
b.- Because they are not fully ratified, because of the time elapsed and because the subjects concerning the Maritime Authority in the Boundary Area are handled by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs and are outside the institutional level:
From the Fourth Bilateral Meeting of 1995:
First Understanding: “With respect to the ‘Procedure for the exchange of Chilean or Peruvian fishing boats, apprehended undertaking fishing activities to the north or to the south of the Special Maritime Frontier Zone (S.M.F.Z.), between the Harbour Master of Ilo and the Maritime Governor of Arica’, the work done by the Chilean Delegation was presented and the comments of the Peruvian Delegation were received. The matter was received as a proposal and appears in Annex “A”.”
[…]
264
265
Annex 30
Joint Declaration by the Presidents of Ecuador and Chile on the
Occasion of the Official Visit to Ecuador of the President of Chile,
1 December 2005
Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
266
Annex 30
Annex 30
267
Ecuador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Joint DeclaratiECLARATIon on the occasi on of the Official Visit to Ecuad or of the President of the Repu blic of Chile , His Excellenc y Mr. Ricard o Lag os Esc obar
At the invitation of His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ecuador, Dr. Alfredo Palacio, His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chile, Mr. Ricardo Lagos Escobar, accompanied by a large Delegation, paid an Official Visit to Ecuador, on 1 December 2005.
In an atmosphere of frank friendship and cordiality, the Presidents of Ecuador and Chile carried out a review of the issues on the bilateral, regional and multilateral agenda and, encouraged by the desire to privilege the relations in all fields and to strengthen and enhance the historical ties of friendship and cooperation between the two Nations, signed the following:
Joint DeclaratiECLARATIon
[...]
6. Coinciding with the Joint Press Release of the Foreign Ministers of Ecuador and Chile of 25 November 2005, [the Presidents] reaffirmed the full validity of, and their firm adherence to, the Treaties and other Instruments of the South-East Pacific, in particular, the Declaration on the Maritime Zone of 1952 and the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone of 1954, which establish the maritime delimitation between the Parties through a geographic parallel.
[...]
268
Annex 30
269
Annex 31
Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the Republic
of Peru and the Government of the Republic of Chile, signed
at Lima on 22 August 2006
Website of the Ministry of Trade and Tourism of Peru
270
Annex 31
Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre el Gobierno de la República del Perú y el Gobierno de la República de Chile, que modifica y sustituye el ACE Nº 38, sus anexos, apéndices, protocolos y demás instrumentos que hayan sido suscritos a su amparo ACUERDO DE LIBRE COMERCIO PERÚ – CHILE
Annex 31
271
Capítulo 2 Definiciones Generales Artículo 2.1: Definiciones de Aplicación General Para los efectos del presente Acuerdo y, a menos que se especifique otra cosa:ACE Nº 38 significa el Acuerdo de Complementación Económica Nº 38 suscrito entre la República de Chile y la República del Perú, el 22 de junio de 1998; Acuerdo ADPIC significa el Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio, que forma parte del Acuerdo sobre la OMC; Acuerdo de Valoración Aduanera significa el Acuerdo relativo a la Aplicación del Artículo VII del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio de 1994,que forma parte del Acuerdo sobre la OMC; Acuerdo sobre la OMC significa el Acuerdo de Marrakech por el que se establece la Organización Mundial del Comercio, de fecha 15 de abril de 1994; Acuerdo sobre Salvaguardias significa el Acuerdo sobre Salvaguardias, que forma parte del Acuerdo sobre la OMC; Acuerdo MSF significa el Acuerdo sobre la Aplicación de Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias, que forma parte del Acuerdo sobre la OMC; Acuerdo OTC significa el Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio, que forma parte del Acuerdo sobre la OMC; AGCS significa el Acuerdo General sobre el Comercio de Servicios, que forma parte del Acuerdo sobre la OMC; ALADIsignifica la Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración, instituida por el Tratado de Montevideo 1980;capítulo se refiere a los primeros dos dígitos del Sistema Armonizado para la Designación y Codificación de Mercancías o de la Nomenclatura NALADISA. Comisión Administradora significa aquella establecida de conformidad con el artículo 15.1 (Comisión Administradora); contrataciones públicas significa el proceso mediante el cual un gobierno adquiere el uso de o adquiere mercancías o servicios, o cualquier combinación de éstos, para propósitos gubernamentales y no con miras a la venta o reventa comercial, o uso en la producción o suministro de mercancías o servicios para la venta o reventa comercial;días significa días naturales, corridos o calendario; empresa significa cualquier entidad constituida u organizada conforme a la legislación aplicable, tenga o no fines de lucro y sea de propiedad privada o 2-1
272
Annex 31
gubernamental, incluidas cualesquier sociedad, fideicomiso, participación, empresa de propietario único, coinversión u otra asociación; empresa de una Parte significa una empresa constituida u organizada conforme a la legislación de una Parte; empresa del Estado significa una empresa que es propiedad de una Parte o que se encuentra bajo el control de la misma, mediante derechos de dominio; existente significa vigente a la fecha de entrada en vigor del presente Acuerdo; GATT 1994 significa Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio de 1994, que forma parte del Acuerdo sobre la OMC; inversión cubierta significa, con respecto a una Parte, una inversión existente en su territorio de un inversionista de la otra Parte a la fecha de entrada en vigor del presente Acuerdo o establecida, adquirida o expandida con posterioridad; medida incluye cualquier ley, reglamento, procedimiento, requisito o práctica; mercancía significa cualquier mercancía, artículo, bien, material, mercadería o producto;mercancías de una Parte significa las mercancías nacionales como se entienden en el GATT 1994 o aquellas mercancías que las Partes convengan, e incluye las mercancías originarias de esa Parte. Una mercancía de una Parte puede incluir materiales de países no Parte; mercancía originaria significa una mercancía que cumpla con lo establecido en el Capítulo 4 (Régimen de Origen); nacional significa una persona natural que tiene la nacionalidad de una Parte de acuerdo con su Constitución Política o un residente permanente de una Parte; NALADISA identifica la Nomenclatura Arancelaria de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración, basada en el Sistema Armonizado para la Designación y Codificación de las Mercancías;OMCsignifica Organización Mundial del Comercio;partida se refiere a los primeros cuatro dígitos del Sistema Armonizado o de la Nomenclatura NALADISA; Parte significa todo Estado respecto del cual haya entrado en vigor este Acuerdo; persona significa una persona natural o una empresa; persona de una Parte significa un nacional o una empresa de una Parte; Programa de Liberación significa el programa establecido en el artículo 3.2 (Programa de Liberación); Secciónsignifica una sección del Sistema Armonizadoo de la Nomenclatura NALADISA; 2-2
Annex 31
273
Sistema Armonizado (SA) significa el Sistema Armonizado de Designación y Codificación de Mercancías, incluidas sus Reglas Generales de Interpretación, Notas de Sección y Notas de Capítulo, en la forma en que las Partes lo hayan adoptado y aplicado en sus respectivas legislaciones de aranceles aduaneros; subpartida significa los primeros seis dígitos del Sistema Armonizado o de la Nomenclatura NALADISA; Tratado de Montevideo1980 significa el Acuerdo por el que se constituye la Asociación Latinoamérica de Integración (ALADI); y tratamiento arancelario preferencial significa la desgravación arancelaria establecida en el Programa de Liberación comercial aplicable a una mercancía originaria de conformidad con este Acuerdo. Artículo 2.2: Definición Específica por País Territoriosignifica:(a) con respecto al Perú, el territorio continental, las islas los espacios marítimos y el espacio aéreo bajo su soberanía o derechos de soberanía y jurisdicción, de acuerdo con el derecho internacional y el derecho nacional; y (b) con respecto a Chile, el espacio terrestre, marítimo y aéreo bajo su soberanía y la zona económica exclusiva y la plataforma continental sobre las cuales ejerce derechos soberanos y jurisdicción, de acuerdo con el derecho internacional y su legislación interna. 2-3
274
Annex 31
[…]
Chapter 2
[…]
Article 2.2: Specific Definition by Country
Territory means:
(a) with respect to Peru, the continental territory, the islands, the maritime spaces and the aerial space under its sovereignty or rights of sovereignty and jurisdiction, in compliance with international law and national law; and
(b) with respect to Chile, the terrestrial, maritime and aerial space under its sovereignty and the exclusive economic zone and the continental platform over which it exercises sovereign rights and jurisdiction, in compliance with international law and its internal legislation.
275
Annex 32
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Chile-Ecuador Bilateral Inter-Ministerial Council of 6-7 September 2009
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
276
Annex 32
Annex 32
277
[…]
3. Ecuador and Chile consider that their maritime boundaries have been defined by the 1952 Santiago Declaration and by the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone of 1954, instruments of the South Pacific in force. They also confirmed their common view on issues related to the Law of the Sea and their extensive cooperation on matters related to maritime issues.
[…]
278
279
RECORDS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES
280
281
Annex 33
Minutes of the Third Session of the Third Commission of the Ninth Inter-American Conference, 27 April 1948
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Novena Conferencia Internacional Americana, Actas y Documentos, Vol. IV, 1953, p. 132
282
Annex 33
Annex 33
283
284
Annex 33
Annex 33
285
286
Annex 33
Annex 33
287
[…]
Mr. President: …
The text of the following article reads as follows:
“The aforesaid procedures, furthermore, may not be applied to matters already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award or by decision of an international court, or which are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty.”
I submit the article to vote.
Mr. Viteri Lafronte (Ecuador): I permit myself to request Mr. Belaúnde if it would be possible to find a formula to soften the rigidity of the relevant article. The general principle is acceptable; but, even with respect to matters already resolved, further controversies may arise during the process of performance of those international agreements already resolved. I would request Mr. Belaúnde himself, taking this concept into account, to elaborate a formula which would not have such a general and absolute character. I do not have any particular intention to propose a formulation, or a wording. The only thing I want (and I think it would be possible to achieve), is for this article not to have such an absolute and general character.
Furthermore, let us suppose that the issue would involve any of the following cases: an agreement in force, or an arbitral award, or a judicial decision. Throughout the performance, I say, rather than in the case of interpretation; because we know that in the case of interpretation it would fall to the same tribunal or on the same arbitrator [to decide]. After all, during the development and fulfilment of these facts, many issues may arise that might well be resolved by resorting to any of these means.
Mr. President: The Delegate of Peru has the floor.
Mr. Belaúnde (Peru): I will satisfy the concern or question that the Delegate of Ecuador seems to have.
In my opinion, the article must establish the principle according to which the procedures [under the Pact] do not apply to matters that have been resolved by an agreement of the parties, by an arbitral award or by the decision of a tribunal. It is obvious that if difficulties arise in the proceedings, certainly the same arbitrator, in accordance with the General Treaty on Arbitration, can resolve them. The doubt is perfectly resolved since the article adds “or which are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty”; because those “treaties in force” generally indicate how to resolve those matters.
However, it would be very dangerous to attenuate the formula. In the first place, it would be very difficult to attenuate it; secondly, it would open the door to provoke a dispute, which is exactly what we want to avoid.
[…]
288
289
Annex 34
Minutes of the Second Session of the Legal Affairs Commission of the 1952 Conference, 12 August 1952 at 4.00 p.m.
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
290
Annex 34
Annex 34
291
[…]
The Legal Affairs Commission [of the Conference on Exploitation and Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific] held its Second Session in the building of Corporación de Fomento de la Producción with the attendance of His Excellency the Ambassador of Peru, Alberto Ulloa, the chargé d’affaires of Ecuador, Jorge Fernández S., Manuel Elguera, Advisor of Peru, and Luis David Cruz Ocampo, Benjamín Claro V., Miguel Rioseco and Fernando Bello, delegates of Chile.
In opening the Session, Mr. Ulloa stated that he and Mr. Luis David Cruz Ocampo had reviewed the draft declaration and that he put forward for consideration of the commission a new draft which included the amendments proposed in the First Session. Following this, he gave the floor to Mr. Luis David Cruz Ocampo, who proceeded to read the draft he had prepared jointly with Mr. Ulloa and explained each one of the amendments made and the reasons therefor.
The text of the draft read by Mr. Cruz Ocampo is the following:
1. Governments have the obligation to ensure for their peoples the necessary conditions of subsistence, and to provide them with the resources for their normal economic development.
2. Consequently, they are responsible for the conservation and protection of their natural resources and for the regulation of the development of these resources in order to secure the best possible advantages for their respective countries.
3. Thus, it is also their duty to prevent any exploitation of these resources, not committed in their jurisdiction, which endangers the existence, integrity and conservation of these resources to the detriment of the peoples who, because of their geographical situation, find irreplaceable means of subsistence and vital economic resources in their seas.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru, determined to conserve and safeguard for their respective peoples the natural resources of the maritime zones adjacent to their coasts, formulate the following declaration:
I) The geological and biological factors which determine the existence, conservation and development of the marine fauna and flora in the waters along the coasts of the countries making the declaration are such that the former extension of the territorial sea and the contiguous zone are inadequate for the purposes of the conservation, development and exploitation of these resources, to which the coastal countries are entitled.
II) In the light of these circumstances, the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru proclaim as a norm of their international maritime policy that they each possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea along the coasts of their respective countries to a minimum distance of two hundred nautical miles from these coasts.
292
Annex 34
Annex 34
293
III) The exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over this maritime zone shall also encompass exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil thereof.
IV) In the case of island territories, the zone of two hundred nautical miles shall apply to the entire coast of the island or group of islands.
If an island or group of islands belonging to one of the countries making the Declaration is situated less than two hundred nautical miles from the general maritime zone belonging to another of those countries, the maritime zone of the island shall be limited by the parallel at the point at which the land frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea.
V) This declaration shall be without prejudice to the necessary limitations to the exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction under international law to allow innocent and inoffensive passage through the area indicated for ships of all nations.
VI) For the application of the principles contained in this Declaration, the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru hereby announce their intention to sign agreements or conventions which shall establish general norms to regulate and protect hunting and fishing within the maritime zone belonging to them, and to regulate and coordinate the exploitation and development of all other kinds of products or natural resources existing in, under or above these waters.
Mr. Fernández, Delegate of Ecuador, stated that the declaration’s final words “to regulate and coordinate the exploitation and development of all other kinds of products or natural resources existing in, below, or above said waters” did not appear to express clearly the purpose of the declaration and could lead one to believe, for instance, that if Chile discovered a submarine coal mine or oilfield or any other submarine resource, it should coordinate with the other countries its course of action for exploitation purposes. Mr. Claro pointed out that the article could only refer to exploitations that were of common interest, an argument reinforced by the words at the beginning of the article referring to the countries’ intention to sign agreements or conventions, which in no case could be deemed an obligation. Hence, any submarine resource any of the countries wished to explore within the zone of its jurisdiction that were of its sole and exclusive interest could be freely exploited without the need for an agreement with the other agreeing countries. [Mr. Claro] added that he did not object to an amendment of the wording that would dispel the possibility of misinterpretations. After an exchange of ideas between all the attendees, it was agreed to replace the words “in, below, or above said waters” for “existing in these waters and which are of common interest”.
294
Annex 34
Annex 34
295
The Chair asked the Rapporteur, Mr. Cruz Ocampo, to read the draft once again in order to undertake a thorough review of its wording.
During the second reading, small changes were introduced to the draft in order to achieve maximum clarity in the declaration.
Following the reading of art. II of the declaration, the delegate of Chile, Mr. Benjamín Claro, said he deemed it appropriate to clearly state the extent afforded to article II above by the Chilean delegation in the Minutes of this Commission, and asked the delegates of Peru and Ecuador to express whether they agreed with Chile’s standpoint. Further, Mr. Claro said that the declaration in art. II, by proclaiming that each declarant country possesses sole sovereignty and jurisdiction over the area of sea adjacent to its coast and extending not less than two hundred nautical miles from said coast, did not amount in any way to a restriction of the sovereignty of any of the declarant States. Therefore, any of the three signatory countries may, as a sovereign State, extend its maritime zone beyond the 200 miles at the time and for the length it deems necessary or appropriate without the need to obtain permission or consent from the other signatory countries. Nonetheless, on account of the common interest shared by the three signatory countries, Chile considers that none of them may reduce the extension of the two-hundred-nautical-mile maritime zone without the prior agreement of the other countries attending the Conference. In other words, a restriction is imposed on each country’s sovereignty in respect of reducing the zone of jurisdiction contained in the declaration, but such sovereignty may be freely exercised to extend the referred jurisdictional zone as each country deems appropriate. The Chair, His Excellency Ambassador Dr. Alberto Ulloa [of Peru], expressed his agreement with the statements made by Mr. Claro on behalf of the Chilean Delegation. Mr. Fernández also expressed that, in his capacity as the Ecuadorean delegate, he accepted the Declaration with the scope explained by the delegate of Chile.
The motion to keep special record of the foregoing statements in the Minutes of this Commission’s Sessions was unanimously agreed, in order to serve as a true record of the extent, sense and accuracy of interpretation of this part of the Declaration. It was also agreed to provide each delegation with an authenticated copy of these Minutes so that it is attached to the declaration for the purposes each country may deem appropriate.
Once the amendments proposed by the Delegates were introduced, the Declaration was unanimously approved. Its text reads as follows:
[…]
296
Annex 34
Annex 34
297
The meeting was adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
Alberto Ulloa
Delegate of Peru
Chairperson Legal Commission
Jorge Fernández S. Luis David Cruz Ocampo
Delegate of Ecuador Delegate of Chile
Fernando Guarello F-H.
Secretary-General
298
299
Annex 35
Minutes of the Inaugural Session of the 1954 CPPS Meeting, 4 October 1954 at 6.00 p.m.
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
300
Annex 35
Annex 35
301
302
Annex 35
Annex 35
303
304
Annex 35
Annex 35
305
306
Annex 35
[…]
The right to proclaim our sovereignty over the sea zone that extends to two hundred miles from the coast is thus undeniable and inalienable. We gather now to reaffirm our decision to defend, whatever the cost, this sovereignty and to exercise it in accordance with the high national interests of the signatory countries to the Declaration.
[…]
We strongly believe that, little by little, the legal statement that has been formulated by our countries into the 1952 Agreement [the Santiago Declaration] will find its place in International Law until it is accepted by all Governments that wish to preserve, for mankind, resources that today are ruthlessly destroyed by the unregulated exercise of exploitative activities that pursue diminished individual interests and not collective needs.
[…]
AGENDA:
The President states that to organize the work of the Commission, a Memorandum had been prepared in which the subjects to be treated are divided into four groups. He added that, save for dissenting opinions, the same Agenda can be used as a base for the work of the Commission, adding the presentations that each Delegation deems appropriate. This Agenda is the following:
(a) Legal defence of the rules of international maritime policy [of Chile, Peru and Ecuador] against objections by other Governments and before international organizations and meetings.–
(b) Uniform legal system of sanctions for violations within the maritime jurisdiction of the respective countries, in breach of the agreements of the [1952] Conference.–
(c) Organization of the technical offices that should serve as Secretariats of the Permanent Commission [of the South Pacific].–
(d) Assimilation of the exploitation of maritime resources to the exploitation of mineral or agricultural resources on the continental or insular land areas for taxation purposes and for the regulation of External Trade.–
(e) Surveillance and control measures over the respective maritime zones.–
(f) Uniform system for the granting of permits to foreigners for carrying out fishing and hunting, methods of control, etc.
[…]
307
Annex 36
Minutes of the Plenary Session of the 1954 CPPS Meeting, 8 October 1954 at 10.30 a.m.
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
308
Annex 36
Annex 36
309
310
Annex 36
Annex 36
311
312
Annex 36
Annex 36
313
314
Annex 36
Annex 36
315
316
Annex 36
Annex 36
317
318
Annex 36
Annex 36
319
320
Annex 36
Annex 36
321
[…]
In the city of Santiago de Chile, at 10:30 of 8 October 1954 in the Sala del Consejo de la Corporación de Fomento de la Producción, which is located in the calle Ramón Nieto No. 920, the Plenary Session of the Second Meeting of the Permanent Committee of the Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of Maritime Resources of the South Pacific was held.
[…]
ReportEPORT of the Sub -Commission of Legal AFFAIRS:
[…]
a) Complementary agreements to the declaration of Sovereignty over the Maritime Zone of 200 Miles.
CONSIDERING:
1- That Chile, Ecuador and Peru have proclaimed their respective Sovereignty over the sea that washes the coasts of their respective countries, up to a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles from said coasts, including the seabed and subsoil belonging to the corresponding maritime zone.
2- That the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru, in the First Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of Maritime Resources of the South Pacific, held in Santiago de Chile in 1952, expressed their intention of signing agreements or conventions for the application of the principles related to said sovereignty, especially with respect to the regulation and protection of hunting and fishing within the Maritime Zone to which each party is entitled.
The PERMANENT COMMISSION recommends to the signatory Governments the adoption of the following rules:
Chile, Ecuador and Peru shall proceed, by mutual agreement, to the legal 1) defence of the principle of sovereignty over the territorial sea of 200 nautical miles, including the respective seabed and subsoil. It is understood that a nautical mile has a length of a minute of arc, measured on the Equator and that is equal to 1,852.8 metres;
If any of the Parties shall receive claims or protests, or is sued before Legal 2) or Arbitral Courts, either of a general or a special nature, the signatory countries agree to consult each other on a defence strategy and are also therefore obliged to provide the widest cooperation for a common defence;
322
Annex 36
In case of violation of the indicated Maritime Zone, the affected State shall 3) immediately inform the other signatory countries to reach an agreement on the best measures for the protection of the sovereignty affected.
Each contracting party agrees not to enter into agreements, accords or 4) understandings that may result in a reduction of the sovereignty of the said zone, without prejudice to their rights to enter into Agreements or contracts that are not conflicting with the common rules established by the signatory countries.
[…]
SYSTEM OF SANCTIONS
FIRST: All infractions of the rules on fishing and maritime hunting approved by the Conference, committed by individual or legal persons, either nationals or foreigners, will be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions established in the present regulation.
[…]
SIXTH: There will be, in each contracting country, a special Tribunal to rule on these infractions and to apply the corresponding sanctions.
[…]
SEVENTH: The infractions referred to herein shall be prosecuted and sanctioned by the Courts of the country which captured the offender.
[…]
ReportEPORT of the SUB-COMMISSION ON TECHNICAL MATTERS:
[…]
Considering :
[…]
Proposal :
1) The amounts resulting from the payments made for permits by foreign whale-hunting groups, for the exploitation of the quotas set for this purpose by the Permanent Commission, shall be deposited in only one Bank and made available for the Permanent Commission;
Annex 36
323
2) The Permanent Commission, by mutual agreement, shall administer the funds destined exclusively to establish the necessary Biological Marine Stations and to promote studies and scientific and technical researches intended for the protection, conservation and the better use of our maritime resources.
Given that the subject of this report tends to modify paragraph 2 of article 3 of the Draft Presented by the Technical Sub-Commission, the Chairman submitted it to debate. The Delegate of Ecuador, Mr. Carlos Puig, intervened and stated on behalf of his Delegation that each Government, and not the Permanent Commission, should be responsible for administering the funds obtained from taxes, rights, fees, etc., set by domestic laws.
The Delegations approved unanimously this modification and therefore the following text was approved as the final version:
GENERAL REGULATION RELATING TO THE GRANTING OF PERMITS FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF THE RESOURCES OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
“FIRST: Neither natural nor legal persons may carry out fishing or maritime hunting activities, vegetable extraction or any other activity regarding the exploitation of the existing resources in the waters of the South Pacific, within the 200 miles of the maritime zone, without previously being granted permits by the relevant country.
SECOND: Permits for carrying out activities within the maritime zone of the signatory States by foreign-flag ships which are not employed by domestic companies, shall be granted pursuant to the provisions of the present agreement and on the basis of an approving report from the technical offices of each country.
Any permits for fishing and hunting of species subject to international quotas shall be granted by the relevant country. This should be done with strict adherence to the quotas set out by the Permanent Commission in its annual meeting, or in the absence thereof, by the Secretariat-General, with the unanimous approval of the Permanent Commission.
[…]
FOURTH: Each permit shall indicate the nature of the activities, the quantity of species that the applicant is entitled to fish or hunt, the maritime zone within which it can operate, the starting and ending dates of the term granted to undertake the activity, the port in which it must allow supervisory officials to board, the amount of the guarantee and any other conditions considered necessary to ensure the compliance with the relevant rules, including the authorization for the use of telecommunication services.
[…]
324
Annex 36
SIXTH: The permits for national or foreign ships to carry out their activities in the exclusive waters of each country, which are employed by domestic fishing or hunting companies, shall continue being granted by local authorities subject to internal regulations currently in force and in compliance with the Conventions related to the defence of the maritime resources, without prejudice to the provision of article 2, paragraph 2. These permits shall be communicated to the Secretariat-General for mutual information.
[…]
ReportEPORT by the sub -comm ISSION for the study of surveillanceSURVEILLANCE and control MEASURES oVER the maritime zones of the signatorySIGNATORY STATES
[…]
1) Each signatory country must carry out the surveillance and control of the exploitation of the maritime resources in its maritime zone by the means they deem necessary;
2) A State cannot exercise the function of policing fishing areas outside the waters of its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it shall be allowed to enter into the maritime zone of another signatory State without new authorization, when its cooperation is requested;
[…]
Various PAPERS: the Permanent Commission unanimously approved the following paper jointly submitted by the Delegations of Ecuador and Peru:
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEUTRAL ZONE FOR FISHING IN THE MARITIME FRONTIER OF THE NEIGHBOURING STATES
Experience has shown that innocent and inadvertent violations of the maritime frontier between the neighbouring States occur frequently because small vessels manned by crews with insufficient knowledge of navigation or not equipped with the necessary instruments have difficulty in determining accurately their position on the high seas.
The application of penalties in such cases always produce ill-feeling among fishermen and friction between the countries concerned, which may adversely affect the spirit of cooperation and unity which should at all times prevail among the signatory countries to the Agreements of Santiago.
Annex 36
325
In order to avoid the occurrence of such unintentional infringements, the consequences of which affect principally fishermen, the Technical Commission recommends:
The creation of a neutral zone at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast, 1) extending to a breadth of ten nautical miles on either side of the parallel which passes through the point of the coast that signals the boundary between the two countries.
The accidental presence in the said zone of a vessel from either of the adjacent 2) States, shall not be considered a violation of the waters of the maritime zone, though this provision shall not be construed as recognizing any right to engage, with deliberate intent, in hunting or fishing in the said neutral zone.
The Commission unanimously gave its approval to this paper and, consequently, 3) entrusted its Secretariat-General to transmit this recommendation to the signatory countries so that they put into practice this norm of tolerance on fishing activities.
The Permanent Commission subsequently debated the recommendation proposed by the Consulting Delegate from the National Fishing Association, Mr. Lautaro Ojeda, from Chile, regarding the granting of taxes, exchange and credit benefits by the signatory countries to stimulate the increase and development of industrial (hunting and fishing) activities.
Unanimously, it has been decided as follows:
“CONSIDERING:
That the Governments of Chile, Peru and Ecuador have signed Agreements to achieve a better exploitation and conservation of the maritime resources of the South Pacific, considering that their main obligation is to ensure that their people have the necessary conditions for subsistence and to secure adequate means for their normal economic development.
That in order to fulfil such purpose, these countries have determined the maritime zones over which they have exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty, and have agreed on the measures of control and surveillance and on other measures that will allow them to conserve, develop and make good use of these resources;
[…]
326
327
Annex 37
Minutes of the Inaugural Session of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 1 December 1954 at 5.00 p.m.
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
328
Annex 37
Annex 37
329
330
Annex 37
Annex 37
331
332
Annex 37
Annex 37
333
[…]
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Dr. David F. Aguilar Cornejo, pronounced the following speech and declared the Conference open:
“Fellow Delegates:
The Government of Peru is very pleased that the Second Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of Marine Resources of the South Pacific is being held in Lima. On behalf of the President of the Republic – who follows with the greatest interest the work carried out by the Conference and the Permanent Commission – and in my name, I am pleased to welcome the Delegates of the Republics of Chile and Ecuador.
Nothing can be more pertinent than the joint action of our countries in proclaiming as a norm of their international maritime policy their sovereignty over the adjacent sea up to two hundred miles. The Declaration of Santiago of 1952 represents the integration and solidarity of three nations which overcame individual action to strengthen an alliance as a superior phase of their international performance, returning to the old and well-known path of the union and the mutual cooperation, in defence of their national sovereignty and in protection of noble and high interests.
It is necessary for the world to acknowledge now that America is elaborating its own law, which does not obey, like the archaic one that some nations try to hold, selfish motives but corresponds to a deep social sentiment, to the obligation and duty to allocate the wealth, whichever area it is developed in, to a social use, setting aside forever the predominant capitalistic interests to the benefit of a few and to the detriment of many, be they nations or people.
Fairly, Peru has rejected, with the support of its Armed Forces, foreign pillaging of the resources in its Maritime Zone and has prosecuted and sentenced the agents responsible for those illicit activities in accordance with its national legislation and by its ordinary judges. Still today, there is no applicable international rule of positive law. This Conference will solemnize the Regulations and Resolutions agreed by the Permanent Commission in Santiago giving them the form of international treaties in order to have the necessary legal instruments that impose, in the future, the appropriate sanctions on those who attempt to ignore our sovereignty and our eminent rights of control and jurisdiction over the Maritime Zone referred to in the national legislations and in the Santiago Declaration.
The Government of Peru does not understand the opposition of some countries, especially Europeans, against the Declaration on the Maritime Zone which has expressly recognized the free navigation or innocent and inoffensive passage for the vessels of all of them. The interest of those States in the preservation of the freedom of the seas has been duly protected by our countries, by declaring it emphatically. Never have we received observations on this matter. This
334
Annex 37
fact proves, with the cold objectivity of the facts, the formal compliance with such a solemn declaration.
Concerning the defence of marine species, we are strict and will proceed in a strict manner against all of those who persist to fish and hunt illegally in the maritime dominion of the Nation, as demonstrated by recent events. We demand, in protection of our sovereignty and the substantial rights of our people, in accordance with what other nations have done, the due respect and the explicit observance of the national and international regulations adopted for the protection of the marine fauna which is directly related to the food production and to the economy of our countries, as it also constitutes an invaluable reserve for Humanity.
[…]
AGENDA: The President stated that to organize the work of the Conference, the following draft agenda had been prepared:
I.- Examination and signature of the agreements proposed by the Second Meeting of the Permanent Commission:
a) Complementary Convention to the Declaration on the Maritime Zone;
b) Agreement on the System of Sanctions;
c) Agreement relating to the Measures of Supervision and Control in the Maritime Zone;
d) Agreement relating to the Granting of Permits for the Exploitation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific;
e) Agreement on the Annual Ordinary Meeting of the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific;
f) Agreement for the Establishment of a Neutral Fishing and Hunting Zone at the Maritime Frontier of the Neighbouring Countries
II.- Review of the way to respond to the Notes of reservation concerning the Declaration on the Maritime Zone;
III.- Examination of new competences for the Permanent Commission.
Working Commissions : The President proposed the creation of a working commission for each of the three points composing the agenda:
Commission I, Examination and signature of the Conventions under the Presidency of the Delegate of Chile.
Commission II, Review of the way to Respond to the Notes of reservation, presided by the Delegate of Peru.
Commission III, Technical, presided by the Delegate of Ecuador.
[…]
335
Annex 38
Minutes of the First Session of Commission I of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 2 December 1954 at 10.00 a.m.
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
336
Annex 38
Annex 38
337
In Lima, at 10:00 on 2 December 1954, Commission I of the Second Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific met in the venue of the Sociedad Nacional de Pesquería, under the Presidency of the Delegate of Chile, Mr. Alfonso Bulnes, with the following Delegates attending:
Chile: His Excellency Mr. Luis David Cruz Ocampo, Alternate Delegate Commander Pedro Santini Santi, Advisor.
Ecuador: His Excellency Mr. Jorge Salvador Lara, Delegate Plenipotentiary.
Peru: Captain Mr. Luis Edgardo Llosa G.P. Advisor;
Mr. Cristóbal Vecorena, Advisor;
Mr. Manuel Elguera, Advisor;
Mr. Roberto Lecca, Advisor;
Mr. Cristóbal Rosas, Advisor.
Permanent Commission: Dr. Julio Ruiz Bourgeois, Secretary-General.
[…]
The Secretary proceeds with the reading of the Complementary Convention to the Declaration of Sovereignty over the Marine Zone of Two Hundred Miles.
[…]
338
Annex 38
Annex 38
339
Mr. CRUZ OCAMPO proposes that, in order to unify the first Resolution with what has been stated in the first recital, it should not be stated that there is a distance of 200 nautical miles, but rather a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles, since circumstances could arise which may require the three countries to extend the zone.
Commander LLOSA explains with regard to this article that the Delegation of Peru wishes to make a modification not just of the wording, but a substantive one; namely, to substitute the phrase “territorial sea” for the phrase “maritime zone”. The Delegate of Peru explained at length the reasons that led him to propose that change, since he is sure that the term Maritime Zone would face less resistance in the international field than the term Territorial Sea.
Mr. CRUZ OCAMPO clarifies the concept of Territorial Sea which he believes is identified in the Maritime Zone, since the States have proclaimed their sovereignty over the latter. He agreed to use the term Maritime Zone but he believes that it would involve no modification of principle. The three States have proclaimed their sovereignty up to 200 miles, be it called Maritime Zone or Territorial Sea.
Mr. RUIZ, Secretary-General of the Permanent Commission, expresses his agreement with the Peruvian proposal since it does not weaken the concept of territorial sea and provides diplomatic advantages. The States that are not willing to modify their legislation on the Territorial Sea could accept the new theory of Adjacent Sea and that would allow us [the attending countries], for example, to win votes in the OAS meetings.
Mr. CRUZ OCAMPO clarifies again that he does not see a difference between the concepts of Maritime Zone and Territorial Sea, but expresses his agreement with the substitution.
340
Annex 38
Annex 38
341
The Delegate of Ecuador, SALVADOR LARA, expresses his agreement with the approved substitution so that Article I will now read as follows:
“Chile, Ecuador and Peru will proceed with mutual agreement with the juridical defence of the principle of Sovereignty over the Maritime Zone up to a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles, including the respective soil and subsoil. It is understood that the nautical mile has a length of one minute of an arc measured on the Equator and that it is equivalent to 1,852.8 metres”.
[…]
Mr. SALVADOR LARA, Delegate of Ecuador, moved 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 explained at the Conference of Santiago, but which would not be redundant to include herein.
Mr. LLOSA and Mr. CRUZ OCAMPO believe that Article 4 of the Declaration of Santiago is clear enough and, therefore, does not require further explanation.
Since the Delegate of Ecuador insists that a declaration to that effect should be included in the Convention, and Article 4 of the Declaration of Santiago was 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 new article, that a record is kept in the Minutes on his speech.
The Delegate of Ecuador states that if the other countries consider that no explicit record is necessary in the Convention, he agreed to record in the Minutes that the three countries deemed the matter on the dividing line of the jurisdictional waters settled and that said line was the parallel starting at the point at which the land frontier between both countries reaches the sea.
342
Annex 38
Mr. LLOSA expresses his agreement with this approach, but clarifies that this agreement was already established in the Conference of Santiago as recorded in the relevant Minutes by the request of the Delegate of Ecuador Mr. Gonzalez.
[…]
The President said that, since there was no further comment to make on the Complementary Convention, this Convention is considered approved as amended, and that [the Conference] will continue with the discussion of the next Agreement.
[…]
Annex 38
343
344
Annex 38
345
Annex 39
Minutes of the Second Session of Commission I of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 3 December 1954 at 10.00 a.m.
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
346
Annex 39
Annex 39
347
348
Annex 39
Annex 39
349
350
Annex 39
Annex 39
351
352
Annex 39
Annex 39
353
354
Annex 39
[…]
Commission I of the Second Conference on Exploitation and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific met at the offices of the Sociedad Nacional de Pesquería in Lima on 3 December 1954, at 10.00 a.m., under the Presidency of His Excellency, Alfonso Bulnes, Delegate Plenipotentiary of Chile, with the following Delegates attending:
CHILE: His Excellency, Luis David Cruz Ocampo, Alternate Delegate;
Commander Pedro Santini Santi, Advisor;
Mr. Augusto Marambio Cabrera, Advisor.
ECUADOR: His Excellency, Jorge Salvador Lara, Delegate Plenipotentiary.
PERU: Captain Luis Edgardo Llosa G.P., Advisor;
Mr. Cristóbal Vecorena, Advisor;
Mr. Manuel Elguera, Advisor;
Mr. Edwin Schweigger, Advisor;
Mr. Roberto Lecca, Advisor;
Mr. Cristóbal Rosas, Advisor.
The CHAIRMAN declared the Session open and invited the Secretary to read the Minutes of the previous Session.
Following a reading of the Minutes, the Delegate of Ecuador, Mr. SALVADOR LARA, requested clarification of the statement made by the CHAIRMAN concerning 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.
With this clarification, the CHAIRMAN declared the Minutes of the First Session approved.
The CHAIRMAN asked the Secretary to read the Agreement on Surveillance and Control Measures in the Maritime Zone of the Signatory Countries.
In Article 1, the term “maritime” appearing before “resources” was deleted; the term “Maritime” was used instead of “Marine”, as in previous occasions. Thus, Article 1 was approved with the following wording: “It shall be the function of each signatory country to supervise and control the exploitation of the resources in its Maritime Zone by the use of such organs and means as it considers necessary.”
Annex 39
355
Having read Article 2, Mr. SALVADOR LARA stated that the drafting was not clear. Following the remarks by Messrs. LECCA, SALVADOR LARA, LLOSA, ROSAS, ELGUERA, RUIZ, CRUZ OCAMPO and SCHWEIGGER, the Article was approved in the following terms: “The supervision and control referred to in article 1 shall be exercised by each country exclusively in the waters of its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, their ships or aircrafts will be allowed to enter the Maritime Zone of another signatory country with no need of special authorization when their cooperation is expressly requested”.
Mr. RUIZ wished to place on record the fact that the original wording of the Article included the phrase “without need for new authorization” for cases such as Chile’s, whose Constitution prescribes for permits to be granted by Law.
Article 3 was approved having included the word “aircrafts”, as in the previous Article, at Mr. SCHWEIGGER’s suggestion.
Article 4 was approved without observations.
Following the reading of Article 5, Captain LLOSA proposed using the word “may” instead of “is qualified to”. Mr. SALVADOR LARA moved for the inclusion of the phrase “the presence of” after the word “authorities” and the deletion of article “the” before “vessels” for greater clarity. It was also agreed to use the expression “Maritime Zone” instead of “200-mile Zone”. Thus, the article was drafted as follows: “Any person may denounce to the corresponding maritime authorities the presence of vessels engaged in the clandestine exploitation of maritime resources within the Maritime Zone.”
Following the approval of Articles 6 and 7 without observations, the CHAIRMAN declared the Agreement approved.
The CHAIRMAN states that [the Commission] will proceed to review the General Regulation on the Granting of Permits for the Exploitation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific.
[…]
The CHAIRMAN stated that [the Commission] will move on to review the Agreement on the Annual Ordinary Meeting of the Permanent Commission.
[…]
356
Annex 39
The CHAIRMAN submitted to discussion the Agreement on the Establishment of a Neutral Fishing and Hunting Zone in the Maritime Frontier of the Neighbouring countries.
Mr. SALVADOR LARA proposed the use of a term other than “Neutral”. Following a debate where all the members of the Commission took part, the CHAIRMAN suggested entitling the Agreement “Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone”. The motion was approved.
[…]
Upon the proposal 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 this article.
Article I was thus amended as follows: “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 a maritime boundary between the two countries.”
Mr. SALVADOR LARA considers that Article 2, when referring to vessels, should mention that [these vessels] are the ones mentioned in the first recital. As a result, the Commission agreed that Article 2 should be drafted as follows: “The accidental presence in the said zone of a vessel of either of the adjacent countries, which is a vessel of the nature described in the paragraph beginning with the words “Experience has shown” in the preamble hereto, shall not be considered to be a violation of the waters of the Maritime Zone, though this provision shall not be construed as recognising any right to engage, with deliberate intent, in hunting or fishing in the said special zone.”
Article 3 is drafted as follows: “Fishing or hunting within the zone of 12 nautical miles from the coast shall be reserved exclusively to the nationals of each country.”
There being no further observations, the CHAIRMAN declared the Agreement adopted and the tasks of the First Commission completed.
357
Annex 40
Final Minutes of the 1954 Inter-State Conference,
4 December 1954
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
358
Annex 40
Annex 40
359
360
Annex 40
Annex 40
361
362
Annex 40
Annex 40
363
364
Annex 40
Annex 40
365
366
Annex 40
Annex 40
367
368
Annex 40
Annex 40
369
[…]
ClarificatiLARIFICATIon on pr ovisi ons of the Agreements
At the request of the Plenipotentiary Delegate of Ecuador, it is noted that the organization and functioning of the marine biology stations, referred to in Article Two of the “Convention on the Annual Ordinary Meeting of the Permanent Commission”, shall be the responsibility of each signatory country, maintaining the necessary connection for research purposes in coordination with the Permanent Commission.
Similarly, in relation to the “Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone”, it is noted that the “accidental presence” referred to in its Article Two, will be determined exclusively by the authorities of the country whose maritime jurisdictional boundary would have been transgressed.
[…]
370
371
Annex 41
United States Department of State, Santiago Negotiations
on Fishery Conservation Problems,
14 September – 5 October 1955
372
Annex 41
Annex 41
373
374
Annex 41
Annex 41
375
376
Annex 41
Annex 41
377
378
Annex 41
Annex 41
379
380
Annex 41
Annex 41
381
382
Annex 41
Annex 41
383
384
Annex 41
Annex 41
385
386
Annex 41
Annex 41
387
388
Annex 41
Annex 41
389
390
Annex 41
Annex 41
391
392
Annex 41
Annex 41
393
394
Annex 41
Annex 41
395
396
Annex 41
Annex 41
397
398
Annex 41
Annex 41
399
400
401
Annex 42
Intervention by Dr. García Sayán of Peru in the general debate
in the Second Committee of the First United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea, 13 March 1958
Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional, Vol. XVIII,
January-June 1958, No. 53, p. 42
402
Annex 42
Annex 42
403
404
Annex 42
Annex 42
405
406
Annex 42
Annex 42
407
408
Annex 42
[…]
Even though a condominium was not established and each country has its own maritime zone in front of its coastline, the Santiago agreement is in line with the historic evolution towards the creation of integration among States.
[…]
409
Annex 43
Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 30th Meeting of the Second Session of the Second Committee of the
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 7 August 1974 at 11.10 a.m.
United Nations document A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.30
410
Annex 43Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/C.2/SR.30Summary records of meetings of the Second Committee 30th meeting Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session)Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 43
411
412
413
Annex 44
Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 45th Meeting of the Second Session of the Second Committee of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
28 August 1974 at 11.00 a.m.
United Nations document A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.45
414
Annex 44Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/C.2/SR.45Summary records of meetings of the Second Committee 45th meeting Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume II (Summary Records of Meetings of the First, Second and Third Committees, Second Session)Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 44
415
416
Annex 44
417
Annex 45
Intervention by Mr. Bákula of Peru during the 48th Meeting of
the Second Session of the Second Committee of the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
2 May 1975 at 3.30 p.m.
United Nations document A/CONF.62/C.2/SR.48
418
Annex 45Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/C.2/SR.4848th meeting of the Second Committee Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume IV (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First, Second and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Third Session)Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 45
419
420
421
Annex 46
Letter No. 804/124 of 20 August 1979 from the Heads of Delegation of Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to the President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
English translation: United Nations document A/CONF.62/85
422
Annex 46
Annex 46
423
424
Annex 46
Annex 46
425
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/85Letter dated 20 August 1979 from the heads of the delegations of Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to the President of the ConferenceExtract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume XII (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Resumed Eighth Session)Copyright © United Nations 2009
426
Annex 46
427
Annex 47
Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 118th
Meeting of the Resumed Eighth Session of the Plenary Meetings
of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
23 August 1979 at 4.35 p.m.
United Nations document A/CONF.62/SR.118
428
Annex 47Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/SR.118118th Plenary meeting Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume XII (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Resumed Eighth Session)Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 47
429
430
431
Annex 48
Statement by the Delegation of Peru at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 4 April 1980
United Nations document A/CONF.62/WS/6
432
Annex 48Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/WS/6Statement by the delegation of Peru dated 4 April 1980 Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume XIII (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee, First and Third Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Ninth Session) Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 48
433
434
Annex 48
Annex 48
435
436
437
Annex 49
Note verbale of 9 March 1981 from the Heads of Delegation of
Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to the President of the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, transmitting
the Cali Declaration of 24 January 1981
United Nations document A/CONF.62/108
438
Annex 49
Annex 49
439
440
Annex 49
Annex 49
441
442
Annex 49
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/108Note verbale dated 9 March 1981 from the representatives of Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to the President of the Conference Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume XV (Summary Records, Plenary, General Committee and First Committee, as well as Documents of the Conference, Tenth and Resumed Tenth Sessions) Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 49
443
444
445
Annex 50
Intervention by Mr. Arias-Schreiber of Peru during the 182nd Plenary Meeting of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 30 April 1982 at 3.20 p.m.
United Nations document A/CONF.62/SR.182
446
Annex 50Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/SR.182182nd Plenary meeting Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume XVI (Summary Records, Plenary, First and Second Committees, as well as Documents of the Conference, Eleventh Session)Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 50
447
448
Annex 50
449
Annex 51
Statement by the CPPS to the Third United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea
United Nations document A/CONF.62/WS/36
450
Annex 51Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 1973-1982Concluded at Montego Bay, Jamaica on 10 December 1982 Document:- A/CoNF.62/WS/36Note by the Secretariat Extract from the Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Volume XVII (Plenary Meetings, Summary Records and Verbatim Records, as well as Documents of the Conference, Resumed Eleventh Session and Final Part Eleventh Session and Conclusion)Copyright © United Nations 2009
Annex 51
451
452