Volume V - Annexes 249-320

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MARITIME DISPUTE
(PERU v. CHILE)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF CHILE
VOLUME V
ANNEXES 279 – 320
9 MARCH 2010

VOLUME V
249 - 320
WRITINGS OF PUBLICISTS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)
Annex 249. F. A. Ahnish, The International Law of Maritime
Boundaries and the Practice of States in the
Mediterranean Sea, 1993
1487
Annex 250. F. Altuve – Febres Lores, El Perú y la Oceanopolítica,
1998
1489
Annex 251. A. Arias-Schreiber, “La Nature Juridique de la Zone
Économique Exclusive”, in Académie Diplomatique
Internationale, Propos sur le nouveau droit de la mer –
Colloque, 1985
1495
Annex 252. V. A. Belaúnde, Trayectoria y Destino – Memorias
Completas, Vol. II, 1967
1499
Annex 253. E. D. Brown, Sea-Bed Energy and Mineral Resources
and the Law of the Sea, Vol. III – Selected Documents,
Tables and Bibliography, 1986
1503
Annex 254. R. R. Bundy, “State Practice in Maritime Delimitation”,
in G. H. Blake (ed.), World Boundaries volume 5:
Maritime Boundaries, 1994, p. 18
1507
Annex 255. J. L. Bustamante y Rivero, Derecho del Mar – La
Doctrina Peruana de las 200 Millas, 1972
1511
Annex 256. J. Castañeda, “Les Positions des États Latino-
Américains”, Actualités du droit de la mer, 1973, p. 158
1521
Annex 257. B. Conforti and G. Francalanci (eds), Atlas of the
Seabed Boundaries, Part Two, 1987
1529
Annex 258. R. Dupuy and D. Vignes (eds), A Handbook on the New
Law of the Sea, Vol. I, 1991
1533
Annex 259. M. Evans, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime
Delimitation, 1989
1541
Annex 260. W. C. Extavour, The Exclusive Economic Zone, 1979 1543
Annex 261. E. Ferrero Costa, “Fundamento de la Soberanía
Marítima del Perú Hasta las 200 Millas”, in Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú, Derecho, No. 32, 1974,
p. 38
1551
Annex 262. G. Francalanci and T. Scovazzi (eds), Lines in the Sea,
1994
1555
Annex 263. J. P. A. François, Handboek van het Volkenrecht, 1949 1559
Annex 264. Kuen-Chen Fu, Equitable Ocean Boundary Delimitation
– On Equitable Principles and Ocean Boundary
Delimitation, 1989
1563
Annex 265. R. Galindo Pohl, “The Exclusive Economic Zone in the
Light of Negotiations of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea”, in F. Orrego Vicuña
(ed.), The Exclusive Economic Zone – A Latin American
Perspective, 1984, p. 31
1573
Annex 266. E. García Sayán, Notas sobre la Soberanía Marítima del
Perú – Defensa de las 200 millas de mar peruano ante
las recientes transgresiones, 1955
1577
Annex 267. F. V. García-Amador, “The Origins of the Concept of an
Exclusive Economic Zone: Latin American Practice and
Legislation”, in F. Orrego Vicuña (ed.), The Exclusive
Economic Zone – A Latin American Perspective, 1984,
p. 7
1587
Annex 268. G. González Videla, Memorias, Vol. 2, 1975 1593
Annex 269. Foreword by J. Salvador Lara in P. Goyes Arroyo,
Límite Marítimo: Ecuador-Perú, 2007, p. xi
1599
Annex 270. Yuan Gujie, The Theory and Practice of International
Maritime Delimitation, 2000
1607
Annex 271. R. Hodgson and R. Smith, “Boundaries of the Economic
Zone”, in E. Miles and J. K. Gamble, Jr. (eds), Law of
the Sea: Conference Outcomes and Problems of
Implementation, 1977, p. 183
1611
Annex 272. R. Hodgson, “The Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries
between Opposite and Adjacent States through the
Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf: Selected
State Practice”, in T. A. Clingan, Jr. (ed.), Law of the
Sea: State Practice in Zones of Special Jurisdiction,
1982, p. 281
1615
Annex 273. A. Jaffe Carbonell, Venezuela y la Evolución del
Derecho del Mar en Materia de Delimitación Marítima,
1996
1619
Annex 274. S. P. Jagota, “Maritime Boundary”, Recueil des cours,
Vol. 171, 1981-II, p. 83
1623
Annex 275. H. W. Jayewardene, The Regime of Islands in
International Law, 1990
1629
Annex 276. R. Jennings and A. Watts (eds), Oppenheim’s
International Law, Vol. 1: Peace, Parts 2 to 4, 9th edn,
1992
1633
Annex 277. Zhou Jian, International Law Case Studies on Island
Sovereignty and Maritime Delimitation, 1999
1637
Annex 278. Gao Jianjun, International Maritime Delimitation Study
– Study on the Rule of Equidistance/Special
Circumstances, 2005
1643
Annex 279. E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “South American Maritime
Boundaries”, in J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander
(eds), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I, 1993,
p. 285
1647
Annex 280. E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “Chile-Peru”, in J. I. Charney
and L. M. Alexander (eds), International Maritime
Boundaries, Vol. I, 1993, p. 793
1653
Annex 281. E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “Colombia-Ecuador”, in J. I.
Charney and L. M. Alexander (eds), International
Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I, 1993, p. 809
1661
Annex 282. E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “Chile-Peru – Report 3-5
(Corr. 1, Add. 1)”, in J. I. Charney and R. W. Smith
(eds), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV, 2002,
p. 2639
1669
Annex 283. D. M. Johnston, The Theory and History of Ocean
Boundary-Making, 1988
1671
Annex 284. D. M. Johnston and M. J. Valencia, Pacific Ocean
Boundary Problems – Status and Solutions, 1991
1677
Annex 285. B. Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic
Zone in the New Law of the Sea, 1989
1683
Annex 286. G. Labrecque, Les frontières maritimes internationales
– Géopolitique de la délimitation en mer, 2004
1687
Annex 287. C. Lara Brozzesi, La Delimitación Marítima entre el
Ecuador y el Perú: Nuevas Aclaraciones, 2005
1697
Annex 288. H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law
by the International Court, 1958
1705
Annex 289. L. Lucchini and M. Voelckel, Droit de la Mer, Tome II:
Délimitation – Navigation Pêche, 1996
1713
Annex 290. N. Marques Antunes, Towards the Conceptualisation of
Maritime Delimitation – Legal and Technical Aspects of
a Political Process, 2003
1719
Annex 291. P. Martínez de Pinillos, “Geografía y superficie de
nuestro mar”, in Revista Geográfica del Perú,
December 1956, p. 147
1723
Annex 292. T. L. McDorman, K. P. Beauchamp, D. M. Johnston,
Maritime Boundary Delimitation: An Annotated
Bibliography, 1983
1737
Annex 293. M. W. Mouton, The Continental Shelf, 1952 1741
Annex 294. S. N. Nandan, “The Exclusive Economic Zone: A
Historical Perspective”, in Essays in memory of Jean
Carroz: The Law and the Sea, 1987, p. 171
1751
Annex 295. S. Nandan and S. Rosenne (eds), United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary,
Vol. II, 2002-2003
1757
Annex 296. F. Novak and L. García-Corrochano, Derecho
Internacional Público, Tome II, Vol. 1, 2001
1761
Annex 297. K. G. Nweihed, Frontera y Límite en su Marco
Mundial, 2nd edn, 1992
1765
Annex 298. D. P. O’Connell, The International Law of the Sea,
Vol. I, 1982
1769
Annex 299. L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1:
Peace (H. Lauterpacht (ed.)), 8th edn, 1955
1779
Annex 300. F. Orrego Vicuña, “The Exclusive Economic Zone in a
Latin American Perspective: An Introduction”, in
F. Orrego Vicuña (ed.), The Exclusive Economic Zone –
A Latin American Perspective, 1984, p. 1
1787
Annex 301. F. Orrego Vicuña, The Exclusive Economic Zone:
Regime and Legal Nature under International Law,
1989
1793
Annex 302. F. Orrego Vicuña, “International Ocean Developments
in the Southeast Pacific: The Case of Chile”, in J. P.
Craven, J. Schneider and C. Stimson (eds), The
International Implications of Extended Maritime
Jurisdiction in the Pacific, 1989, p. 221
1801
Annex 303. F. M. Pfirter de Armas, “¿Perú: la marcha hacia el
oeste?”, in R. Zacklin (ed.), El Derecho del Mar en
Evolución: La Contribución de los Países Americanos,
1975, p. 295
1805
Annex 304. J. R. V. Prescott, The Political Geography of the
Oceans, 1975
1811
Annex 305. J. R. V. Prescott, The Maritime Political Boundaries of
the World, 1985
1813
Annex 306. J. R. V. Prescott and C. Schofield, The Maritime
Political Boundaries of the World, 2nd edn, 2005
1819
Annex 307. P. J.-M. Reuter, “Une ligne unique de délimitation des
espaces maritimes?”, in Mélanges Georges Perrin,
1984, p. 251
1823
Annex 308. S. Rhee, “Equitable Solutions to the Maritime Boundary
Dispute between the United States and Canada in the
Gulf of Maine”, American Journal of International Law,
Vol. 75, 1981, p. 590
1827
Annex 309. J. A. Roach and R. W. Smith, United States Responses
to Excessive Maritime Claims, 2nd edn, 1996
1831
Annex 310. T. Scovazzi, “Turkey-Soviet Union (Territorial Sea)” in
J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (eds), International
Maritime Boundaries, Vol. II, 1993, p. 1685
1837
Annex 311. G. J. Tanja, The Legal Determination of International
Maritime Boundaries, 1990
1845
Annex 312. A. Ulloa, Para la Historia Internacional y Diplomática
del Perú: Chile, 1987
1849
Annex 313. L. Valencia Rodríguez, Análisis de la Posición Jurídica
Ecuatoriana en las Doscientas Millas, 1980
1853
Annex 314. E. Vergaray Lara, “El Mar del Perú es una Región
Geográfica”, Asociación Nacional de Geógrafos
Peruanos, Anales, Vol. III, 1962
1857
Annex 315. T. Wolff, Peruvian-United States Relations over
Maritime Fishing, Law of the Sea Institute University of
Rhode Island, Occasional Paper No. 4, 1970
1863
Annex 316. R. Young, “Recent Developments with Respect to the
Continental Shelf”, American Journal of International
Law, Vol. 42, 1948, p. 849
1867
Annex 317. J. Zavala, Consenso y Confrontación en la Delimitación
de la ZEE y de la Plataforma Continental, 1998
1875
OTHER DOCUMENTS
Annex 318. Perupetro, Estadística Petrolera 2008 1885
Annex 319. J. A. del Busto Duthurburu, Los Peruanos en la
Antártida, 1989
1893
Annex 320. FAO Fisheries Statistics Query Results 1899

1485
WRITINGS OF PUBLICISTS
(IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)
1486
1487
Annex 249
F. A. Ahnish, The International Law of Maritime Boundaries
and the Practice of States in the Mediterranean Sea, 1993
1488
Annex 249
1489
Annex 250
F. Altuve – Febres Lores, El Perú y la Oceanopolítica, 1998
1490
Annex 250
Annex 250
1491
1492
Annex 250
Annex 250
1493
1494
Annex 250
[…]
c) Peru and the Chilean thesis
Peru’s Territorial thesis presents three major problems. First, it contains a
self-imposed limitation of the Maritime Dominion, up to a distance of only 200
miles, whereas our international commitments refer to a minimum distance of 200
miles.
[...]
Thirdly and most importantly, our maritime boundaries are measured,
according to our own definition, on the basis of the parallels and not through the
equidistance line, [which is] internationally accepted and established by the 1982
Convention.
Given that this last issue allows for the advancement of the thesis of the
“Presencial Sea” up to Boundary Marker No. 1 of the northern frontier (parallel
18° 20), some commentators have understood that it is possible to counteract this
flaw through the signature of the Convention on the Law of the Sea by Peru in order
to allow the Exclusive Economic Zones of both countries to be governed by Article
74.1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
[...]
But we need to remember that this provision does not benefit Peru at all,
because we concluded on 4 December 1954 an “Agreement Relating to a Special
Maritime Frontier Zone”, which has been ratified by Peru, Ecuador and Chile,
which in Article 1 refers to:
“… the parallel which constitutes the maritime boundary
between two countries …”.
For this reason, article 74 paragraph 1 would not be applicable to us by
adhering to the Convention. Rather, paragraph 4 of the same article would apply,
which reads as follows:
“Where there is an agreement in force between the States
concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the exclusive
economic zone shall be determined in accordance with the
provisions of that agreement.”
The fact that the Convention establishes a mandatory tribunal does not mean
that we can bring a valid claim, for the 1954 Agreement would be preferred by any
international judge, as the law between the Parties.
1495
Annex 251
A. Arias-Schreiber, “La Nature Juridique de la Zone
Économique Exclusive”, in Académie Diplomatique
Internationale, Propos sur le nouveau droit de la mer –
Colloque, 1985
1496
Annex 251
Annex 251
1497
1498
Annex 251
1499
Annex 252
V. A. Belaúnde, Trayectoria y Destino –
Memorias Completas, Vol. II, 1967
1500
Annex 252
Annex 252
1501
[…]
… Article 6 of the Pact stated: “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.” The article
prevented revisionism, establishing the respect for res judicata and the preference
for the procedures agreed by the parties. The Pact of Bogotá may be highlighted as
an improvement with regard to the legal means of the Geneva Act as well as with
regard to the Washington Pacts.
[…]
1502
1503
Annex 253
E. D. Brown, Sea-Bed Energy and Mineral Resources and the
Law of the Sea, Vol. III – Selected Documents,
Tables and Bibliography, 1986
1504
Annex 253
Annex 253
1505
1506
1507
Annex 254
R. R. Bundy, “State Practice in Maritime Delimitation”, in G. H.
Blake (ed.), World Boundaries volume 5: Maritime Boundaries,
1994, p. 18
1508
Annex 254
Annex 254
1509
1510
Annex 254
1511
Annex 255
J. L. Bustamante y Rivero, Derecho del Mar – La Doctrina
Peruana de las 200 Millas, 1972
1512
Annex 255
Annex 255
1513
1514
Annex 255
Annex 255
1515
1516
Annex 255
Annex 255
1517
1518
Annex 255
Annex 255
1519
[…]
In relation to the territorial sea, the Decree establishes (arts. 2 and 3) that “national
sovereignty and jurisdiction are also exercised over the sea adjoining the shores of national
territory, whatever its depth and in the extension necessary to reserve, protect, maintain
and utilize natural resources and wealth of any kind which may be found in or below
those waters.” The text in Article 3 mentions the prerogative reserved to the State to
establish the “necessary extension” at different times or on the basis of future supervening
circumstances; and therefore it demarcates and fixes [that necessary extension] within a
zone which, starting from the coast, ends at an imaginary line parallel to it and traced over
the sea at a distance of 200 nautical miles following the line of the geographic parallels.
[…]
- c) The [Santiago] Declaration mentions jointly, that is, as independent concepts, each
one with its own and different meaning, the sovereignty and the jurisdiction; and extends
both powers to the subject “adjacent sea”; in such a way that it is not correct to think that
the authors’ purpose was to constitute within the 200 miles only a jurisdictional sea, but
– and in the first place – a sea subject to the sovereignty of the State, that is a territorial
sea.
In light of this reasoning, the only possible interpretation of the text of the Decree
of 1 August 1947 – concordant with the Santiago Declaration – is that the 200-mile zone
adjacent to the coast was created in this case with the characteristics that International
Law attributes to the territorial sea; that is, as a zone to which the full jurisdiction of the
State applies as an effect and as a logical conclusion of its power of sovereignty.
This is in my view the authentic interpretation of the text of the Decree of 1 August
1947 and its related texts as well as the one according to common sense, for the act of
jurisdiction, be it broad or concrete, general or specific, supposes a power of command
which regarding the State is called sovereignty.
[…]
1520
1521
Annex 256
J. Castañeda, “Les Positions des États Latino-Américains”,
Actualités du droit de la mer, 1973, p. 158
1522
Annex 256
Annex 256
1523
1524
Annex 256
Annex 256
1525
1526
Annex 256
Annex 256
1527
1528
1529
Annex 257
B. Conforti and G. Francalanci (eds), Atlas of the
Seabed Boundaries, Part Two, 1987
1530
Annex 257
Annex 257
1531
1532
1533
Annex 258
R. Dupuy and D. Vignes (eds), A Handbook on the
New Law of the Sea, Vol. 1, 1991
1534
Annex 258
Annex 258
1535
1536
Annex 258
Annex 258
1537
1538
Annex 258
Annex 258
1539
1540
1541
Annex 259
M. Evans, Relevant Circumstances and Maritime Delimitation,
1989
1542
Annex 259
1543
Annex 260
W. C. Extavour, The Exclusive Economic Zone, 1979
1544
Annex 260
Annex 260
1545
1546
Annex 260
Annex 260
1547
1548
Annex 260
Annex 260
1549
1550
1551
Annex 261
E. Ferrero Costa, “Fundamento de la Soberanía Marítima del
Perú Hasta las 200 Millas”, in Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú, Derecho, No. 32, 1974, p. 38
1552
Annex 261
Annex 261
1553
1554
Annex 261
[…]
Table No. 5
Desc ription, in pe rce ntages , of the produc tion of crude oil in the
country, by geograph ic zones and in rel ation TO the total national
produc tion (1961 – 1974)
YEAR S
TOTAL
PRO DUCTION
(Barrels)
COAST
%
EAST
%
CONTINENTAL
SHELF
%
[…]
1555
Annex 262
G. Francalanci and T. Scovazzi (eds), Lines in the Sea, 1994
1556
Annex 262
Annex 262
1557
1558
1559
Annex 263
J. P. A. François, Handboek van het Volkenrecht, 1949
1560
Annex 263
Annex 263
1561
[…]
… Chile followed the American example in its governmental proclamation dated 23 June
1947. By this proclamation, it declared that the border of the zone of protected fisheries
would be determined according to its needs but would, in any event, include an area of 200
nautical miles off the Chilean coast.
These regulations, which relate to the assertion of rights over the “continental shelf”
(continental shelf, see page 122), severely undermine the principle of the freedom of the
seas insofar as fisheries are concerned, and cannot therefore be considered to comply with
international law.
[…]
1562
1563
Annex 264
Kuen-Chen Fu, Equitable Ocean Boundary Delimitation – On
Equitable Principles and Ocean Boundary Delimitation, 1989
1564
Annex 264
Annex 264
1565
1566
Annex 264
Annex 264
1567
1568
Annex 264
Annex 264
1569
1570
Annex 264
Annex 264
1571
1572
1573
Annex 265
R. Galindo Pohl, “The Exclusive Economic Zone in the Light of
Negotiations of the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea”, in F. Orrego Vicuña (ed.), The Exclusive
Economic Zone – A Latin American Perspective, 1984, p. 31
1574
Annex 265
Annex 265
1575
1576
Annex 265
1577
Annex 266
E. García Sayán, Notas sobre la Soberanía Marítima del Perú –
Defensa de las 200 millas de mar peruano ante las recientes
transgresiones, 1955
1578
Annex 266
Annex 266
1579
1580
Annex 266
Annex 266
1581
[…]
determinant considerations concerning the adopted position
4. From the former declarations, the only one with terms and scope
similar to those that Peru needed to express was the one of Chile. For Peru, as for
Chile, the concept of the submarine platform or continental shelf was unsatisfactory
due to the fact that [the continental shelf] is generally narrow along our coastline
and even less than 2 miles at some points, extending at its maximum point to 60 or
80 miles in a specific location (Huarmey-Pimentel). This is shown on bathymetric
charts compiled on the basis of [depth] soundings verified by the Peruvian Navy or
by expeditions of foreign scientific entities. Conversely, the United States, Mexico
and Argentina have very large submarine platforms extending, in some cases,
further to the 200 miles (the one of the Unites States ranges from 5 miles on the
coast of Florida, to 130 miles off the coast of Louisiana, at the mouth of the Silene
River and to 250 miles off the coast of New England). The proclamation solely of
our sovereignty over the submarine platform and the epicontinental seas covering it
would have left unprotected our ichthyologic wealth, which was at that moment at
stake. Nor would the latter have been sufficiently protected by the sole formulation
of a right to establish “conservation zones” in the high seas in the future, like in the
North American proclamation. Peru, more so than the countries that preceded it in
its proclamation, needed to give a prompt and clear solution to its problem without
waiting for the slow, if not unattainable, consensus of the international community
and through the means of a method that would allow it to oppose, of course, the
intrusions of foreign fishing expeditions that compromised the country’s economic
interests. These major reasons assisting Peru regarding the resources of the sea,
which are of major importance only for a few other countries, are of two orders:
some relate to the feeding deficiencies suffered by its population, which could yet be
compensated for by those resources; some others [relate] to the special conservation
measures required by the maritime fauna that serve as food to the guano birds. That
is how, in consideration of all this, to preserve such vital national interest, a position
was adopted coincident with that of Chile – which was thereby reinforced – and that
was reduced to written form by the Supreme Decree of 1 August 1947 (3).
(3) See text of the Decree in Annex 1
[…]
1582
Annex 266
Annex 266
1583
1584
Annex 266
Annex 266
1585
1586
Annex 266
It is appropriate to mention, among the acts confirming the rights declared in
1947, a recent Supreme Resolution issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 12
January 1955, in which it is specified that, in order to depict the 200-mile maritime
zone referred to in the 1947 Supreme Decree and the 1952 Santiago Declaration
in cartographic and geodesic works, the indicated zone “is limited at sea by a line
parallel to the Peruvian coast at a constant distance of 200 nautical miles from
it”, which will not go beyond the corresponding parallels “at the point where the
frontier of Peru reaches the sea”.
[…]
1587
Annex 267
F. V. García-Amador, “The Origins of the Concept of an
Exclusive Economic Zone: Latin American Practice and
Legislation”, in F. Orrego Vicuña (ed.), The Exclusive Economic
Zone – A Latin American Perspective, 1984, p. 7
1588
Annex 267
Annex 267
1589
1590
Annex 267
Annex 267
1591
1592
1593
Annex 268
G. González Videla, Memorias, Vol. 2, 1975
1594
Annex 268
Annex 268
1595
1596
Annex 268
Annex 268
1597
[…]
It was the first Declaration that made reference to the two hundred miles. I was convinced of
the necessity and urgency to extend our territorial waters up to two hundred miles by a full and
interesting report prepared by Fernando Guarello, a lawyer and professor, with whom I share
an old friendship. With serious and telling precedents, in addition to irrefutable statistics, he
demonstrated that our coastline, from Arica to Antarctica, was plagued with foreign fleets which
threatened the extinction of some species.
[...]
1598
1599
Annex 269
Foreword by J. Salvador Lara in P. Goyes Arroyo, Límite
Marítimo: Ecuador-Perú, 2007, p. xi
1600
Annex 269
Annex 269
1601
1602
Annex 269
Annex 269
1603
1604
Annex 269
Annex 269
1605
[…]
According to this Agreement, the maritime frontier [frontera marítima]
between Ecuador and Peru and Chile and Peru was explicitly defined as the parallel
that commences on the point where the land frontier [frontera terrestre] touches the
Pacific Ocean, a rule that has lasted for several decades and that has had more than
half a century of unquestioned validity for Peru, although currently a dangerous
interpretation regarding the maritime boundary with Chile is being advanced.
[…]
1606
1607
Annex 270
Yuan Gujie, The Theory and Practice of International Maritime
Delimitation, 2000
1608
Annex 270
Annex 270
1609
[…]
Before 1975, there were only 9 agreements dealing with delimitation issues in
respect of economic zones or fishing areas, of which 4 were made by and between
South American countries, including those in 1952 between Peru and Chile [and]
Peru and Ecuador.2
[…]
2 The Santiago Declaration on the Maritime Zone of 1952 determined the maritime
boundaries between Chile and Peru, and Ecuador and Peru.
1610
1611
Annex 271
R. Hodgson and R. Smith, “Boundaries of the Economic Zone”,
in E. Miles and J. K. Gamble, Jr. (eds), Law of the Sea:
Conference Outcomes and Problems of Implementation, 1977,
p. 183
1612
Annex 271
Annex 271
1613
1614
Annex 271
1615
Annex 272
R. Hodgson, “The Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries
between Opposite and Adjacent States through the Economic
Zone and the Continental Shelf: Selected State Practice”, in
T. A. Clingan, Jr. (ed.), Law of the Sea: State Practice in Zones
of Special Jurisdiction, 1982, p. 281
1616
Annex 272
Annex 272
1617
1618
1619
Annex 273
A. Jaffe Carbonell, Venezuela y la Evolución del Derecho del
Mar en Materia de Delimitación Marítima, 1996
1620
Annex 273
Annex 273
1621
1622
1623
Annex 274
S. P. Jagota, “Maritime Boundary”, Recueil des cours, Vol. 171,
1981-II, p. 83
1624
Annex 274
Annex 274
1625
1626
Annex 274
Annex 274
1627
1628
1629
Annex 275
H. W. Jayewardene, The Regime of Islands in International
Law, 1990
1630
Annex 275
Annex 275
1631
1632
Annex 275
1633
Annex 276
R. Jennings and A. Watts (eds), Oppenheim’s International
Law, Vol. 1: Peace, Parts 2 to 4, 9th edn, 1992
1634
Annex 276
Annex 276
1635
1636
Annex 276
1637
Annex 277
Zhou Jian, International Law Case Studies on Island
Sovereignty and Maritime Delimitation, 1999
1638
Annex 277
Annex 277
1639
1640
Annex 277
Annex 277
1641
[…]
Other Delimitation Methods
1. Parallels of Latitude
[…]
Examples in which the method of the parallel of latitude is applied: the “Convention on the
Maritime Boundary” between Chile and Peru of 18 August 1952 and the “Convention on the
Maritime Boundary” between Peru and Ecuador of 18 August 1952.
[…]
In an article summarizing the regional practice in South America relating to maritime boundaries,
Judge Jiménez de Aréchaga is of the opinion that in modern national practices, the use of
parallels of latitude as delimitation lines cannot be construed as a commitment to overcome
the unfair consequences that may be caused by the equidistant line. “In 1952, the countries
involved in making the Tripartite Declaration (Chile, Peru and Ecuador) created a new chapter
in maritime law by claiming the 200-nautical mile territorial sea rights. Due to the lack of
well-known delimitation principles or recognised delimitation rules at that time, they chose the
method of the parallel of latitude, which involves tracing a line from the point at which the land
frontier meets the sea…”
[…]
1642
1643
Annex 278
Gao Jianjun, International Maritime Delimitation Study – Study
on the Rule of Equidistance/Special Circumstances, 2005
1644
Annex 278
[…]
2.2.3 Convention on the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and fishing area
The first treaty that delimited the exclusive economic zone was the Santiago Declaration of
1952 concluded by three neighbouring South American countries, i.e. Chile, Ecuador and
Peru.
[…]
Annex 278
1645
There are in total 21 cases of adjacent delimitation. In 9 of these cases the equidistant line or
adjusted equidistant line is used as a boundary; the equidistant line is partially used in 2 cases;
the azimuth line is used in 2 cases; and the parallel or meridian method is used in 5 cases.
[…]
The 5 cases in which the parallel or meridian is used for delimitation include, inter alia, the
1952 Santiago Declaration.
[…]
1646
1647
Annex 279
E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “South American Maritime
Boundaries”, in J. I. Charney and L. M. Alexander (eds),
International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I, 1993, p. 285
1648
Annex 279
Annex 279
1649
1650
Annex 279
Annex 279
1651
1652
Annex 279
1653
Annex 280
E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “Chile-Peru”, in J. I. Charney and
L. M. Alexander (eds), International Maritime Boundaries,
Vol. I, 1993, p. 793
1654
Annex 280
Annex 280
1655
1656
Annex 280
Annex 280
1657
1658
Annex 280
Annex 280
1659
1660
1661
Annex 281
E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “Colombia-Ecuador”, in J. I. Charney
and L. M. Alexander (eds), International Maritime Boundaries,
Vol. I, 1993, p. 809
1662
Annex 281
Annex 281
1663
1664
Annex 281
Annex 281
1665
1666
Annex 281
Annex 281
1667
1668
1669
Annex 282
E. Jiménez de Aréchaga, “Chile-Peru – Report 3-5 (Corr. 1,
Add. 1)”, in J. I. Charney and R. W. Smith (eds), International
Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV, 2002, p. 2639
1670
Annex 282
1671
Annex 283
D. M. Johnston, The Theory and History of Ocean
Boundary-Making, 1988
1672
Annex 283
Annex 283
1673
1674
Annex 283
Annex 283
1675
1676
1677
Annex 284
D. M. Johnston and M. J. Valencia, Pacific Ocean Boundary
Problems – Status and Solutions, 1991
1678
Annex 284
Annex 284
1679
1680
Annex 284
Annex 284
1681
1682
1683
Annex 285
B. Kwiatkowska, The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the
New Law of the Sea, 1989
1684
Annex 285
Annex 285
1685
1686
Annex 285
1687
Annex 286
G. Labrecque, Les frontières maritimes internationales –
Géopolitique de la délimitation en mer, 2004
1688
Annex 286
Annex 286
1689
1690
Annex 286
Annex 286
1691
1692
Annex 286
Annex 286
1693
1694
Annex 286
Annex 286
1695
1696
1697
Annex 287
C. Lara Brozzesi, La Delimitación Marítima entre el Ecuador y
el Perú: Nuevas Aclaraciones, 2005
Website of Asociación de Funcionarios y Empleados del Servicio Exterior
Ecuatoriano (AFESE)
1698
Annex 287
Annex 287
1699
1700
Annex 287
Annex 287
1701
[…]
Without meaning to be exhaustive (6), before the Declaration of 1952 which
codified multilaterally this method of delimitation for the SMPSE [Maritime System of
the South Pacific], we note that [our] country [Ecuador] maintained this basic principle of
delimitation, at both the international and the national levels.
By the twentieth century, there were the following new texts:
- The Declaration of Panama of 3/10/1939.
- The Presidential Decree No. 53 on the Declaration of Panama of 7/10/1939.
- Executive Decree of 29/01/1952.
In the Declaration of Panama, taken during the First Meeting of Consultation of
Ministers of Foreign Affairs, it was stated: “... For these reasons, the Governments of the
American Republics hereby resolve and declare that: ‘... from there [the point of the land
boundary on the coast] towards the east along parallel 44° 46' 36'' to a point 60° west of
Greenwich ...’” (7). And, Presidential Decree No. 53, entitled “Extension of the decree of
neutrality of Ecuador, by determining the maritime security zone”, which interpreted the
Declaration of Panama as a confirmation of the method of the parallel between adjacent
States, by stipulating:
“Article 1. The following is considered to be a maritime zone of security adjacent
to Ecuadorean territory: the zone included between two imaginary lines drawn from the
north and south extremities of the Ecuadorean coast to the degrees of longitude west of
Greenwich which correspond respectively to Article 1 of the Declaration of Panama so
as to include in this space all the islands of the Colón [Galápagos] Archipelago and its
adjacent waters...” (8).
Finally, Executive Decree No. 0160 of 29/01/1952, by stating:
“Article 1. Fishing by ships flying foreign flags is prohibited in the Continental
Territorial Waters along the strip between the boundary with Colombian waters to the
north, and the boundary with [the waters] of Peru, to the south, being those [waters]
within the 12 nautical miles zone measured from the low-tide line on the outermost points
of the Ecuadorean coast and adjacent islands”(9).
1702
Annex 287
Annex 287
1703
Therefore, before 18 August 1952, since the nineteenth century Ecuador
based its maritime delimitation with Colombia and Peru on the method of the parallel
without receiving any complaints from its neighbours. For that reason, Peruvian
Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947, in its point 3, just needed to precise
the parallel line in vertical direction: “... and at the same time declares that it will
exercise the same control and protection on the sea adjacent to the Peruvian coast
over the area between the coast and an imaginary parallel line to it at a distance of
two hundred (200) nautical miles measured following the line of the geographical
parallels.”
Even so, after the 1952 Declaration and before its ratification on 6 May 1955,
Peru, in its Supreme Resolution No. 23 of 12 January 1955 referred explicitly
to the geographic parallel in order to demarcate its 200-mile maritime zone, by
resolving:
“... 1. The said zone shall be limited at sea by a line parallel to the Peruvian
coast and at a constant distance of 200 nautical miles from it.
2. In accordance with clause IV of the Declaration of Santiago, the said line
may not extend beyond that of the parallel corresponding to the point where the
frontier of Peru reaches the sea.”
[…]
1704
1705
Annex 288
H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the
International Court, 1958
1706
Annex 288
Annex 288
1707
1708
Annex 288
Annex 288
1709
1710
Annex 288
Annex 288
1711
1712
1713
Annex 289
L. Lucchini and M. Voelckel, Droit de la Mer, Tome II :
Délimitation – Navigation Pêche, 1996
1714
Annex 289
Annex 289
1715
1716
Annex 289
Annex 289
1717
1718
Annex 289
1719
Annex 290
N. Marques Antunes, Towards the Conceptualisation of
Maritime Delimitation – Legal and Technical Aspects of a
Political Process, 2003
1720
Annex 290
Annex 290
1721
1722
1723
Annex 291
P. Martínez de Pinillos, “Geografía y superficie de nuestro mar”,
in Revista Geográfica del Perú, December 1956, p. 147
1724
Annex 291
Annex 291
1725
1726
Annex 291
Annex 291
1727
1728
Annex 291
Annex 291
1729
1730
Annex 291
Annex 291
1731
1732
Annex 291
Annex 291
1733
1734
Annex 291
[…]
On 4 December 1954, the Tripartite Agreement was signed in Lima between
us (Peru), Ecuador and Chile, concerning the common sovereignty over 200 miles
to the West, thereby ratifying, in its essential concepts, the Decree of 1947. This
agreement determines, among other things, a special zone of 10 miles along each
side of the parallel that constitutes the maritime frontier between each of the three
countries. This line enters into the sea from the junction of the land frontiers up to
[a distance of] 12 miles. Nationals of the bordering countries can fish in this zone
without committing a violation of the sovereignty of the Country in the vicinity of
which the fishing resources are being extracted. This Agreement was ratified by our
Congress on 5 May 1955.
[…]
I must, in honour of the truth, say that the legal expert Dr. Rómulo Vidalón,
was the first to support the legal thesis of our property over the sea up to 200 miles
to the West in his study presented to be eligible to the professional title. As it was
also Professor Heráclides Vergaray Lara, who was the first to obtain, after a very
patient effort, the surface of our maritime property according to what is indicated
in the Decree of 1947, which is 626,240 Km2, which is [the figure] taken by our
Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the official number, although it does not indicate the
origin of the data.
According to my proceedings, which have been already indicated, and
generously helped by Professor Julio Gonzales Neyra, we have obtained [a figure
of] 927,536 Km2. [This represents a] greater difference of 301,296 Km2 in our
favour. Going into the details, I would say that various geometrical figures were
traced within all this space and that we obtained the surface of each one of them.
Where the sinuosities of the coast or of the frontier line did not allow this form of
work, a planimeter was used.
The great quantitative difference between the surface given by Professor
Vergaray according to the Decree of 1947 and the Agreement of 1954, and the one I
obtained, means something else than a number of kilometres. It does not only mean
that Peru is Land and Sea, nor that Peru has today a continental area of 1,285,215.6
Km2 and a Maritime Zone area of 927,536 Km2. No. That is not all. It means much
more than that. It simply means that Peru includes, with this procedure and for the
first time in its History and without causing prejudice to anyone’s interests, what
fairly, really and naturally corresponds to it, because that is how it is determined, as
the Sea refers to the Nature. The total surface of Peru, including its Maritime Zone
is: 2,212,751.6 Km2.
[…]
Annex 291
1735
Our Country, more precisely our representatives, and this only along the
period of our Republican History, have ceded 728,000 Km2 of our continental
territory. They have ceded it to the people who, in that regard, have the chance to
be our neighbours. That is why I have once written and I now proclaim it, hurt, and
maybe a little fervently, that we are the Dispossessed of America. And we have just
verified that some, by ignorance, determine that we continue to be.
This situation of inferiority calls for thorough reflection. Because in this
case, unique in our Boundaries History, [only] countries [located] very far from
our coasts were opposed to our determination. But I think they could only do so,
be opposed, given the moments that the World of Mankind goes through and will
continue going through. Our neighbours agreed with us. Such is the case that they
signed the Tripartite Agreement. The pretext of a possible conflict with them for this
reason did not exist at that moment, as it has been argued in the different occasions
in which our Sacred Patrimony has been ceded. However, the result has been the
same.
I said a few moments ago that this can be repaired. We have the hope that the
citizens who compose the new Parliament (Democratic Parliament) revise in detail
and carefully this Treaty. Legally, they can do it. Morally, they are obliged to do so.
It is for them an imperative that can not be deferred. It is also so for all the national
institutions. In this perspective, perhaps the Association of Alumni of the Institute
of Geography of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos holds a leading
place among them.
[…]
1736
1737
Annex 292
T. L. McDorman, K. P. Beauchamp, D. M. Johnston, Maritime
Boundary Delimitation: An Annotated Bibliography, 1983
1738
Annex 292
Annex 292
1739
1740
1741
Annex 293
M. W. Mouton, The Continental Shelf, 1952
1742
Annex 293
Annex 293
1743
1744
Annex 293
Annex 293
1745
1746
Annex 293
Annex 293
1747
1748
Annex 293
Annex 293
1749
1750
1751
Annex 294
S. N. Nandan, “The Exclusive Economic Zone: A Historical
Perspective”, in Essays in memory of Jean Carroz: The Law and
the Sea, 1987, p. 171
1752
Annex 294
Annex 294
1753
1754
Annex 294
Annex 294
1755
1756
1757
Annex 295
S. Nandan and S. Rosenne (eds), United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol. II, 2002-2003
1758
Annex 295
Annex 295
1759
1760
Annex 295
1761
Annex 296
F. Novak and L. García-Corrochano, Derecho Internacional
Público, Tome II, Vol. 1, 2001
1762
Annex 296
Annex 296
1763
[…]
4.2.5. Boundaries with Chile
The frontier between the two States was established by the Treaty of 1929 and its
Additional Protocol; [the frontier] runs parallel to the railway from Arica to La Paz,
and ten miles North of it, but making the necessary arrangements in order to leave
the Tacora sulphur deposits on the Chilean side and passing through the centre of
Laguna Blanca, very close to the rails. The line ends at the seashore of the Pacific
Ocean on boundary marker Concordia (18° 21' 03" S), which is the southernmost
point of Peru.
[…]
1764
1765
Annex 297
K. G. Nweihed, Frontera y Límite en su Marco Mundial,
2nd edn, 1992
1766
Annex 297
Annex 297
1767
[…]
The Santiago Declaration provides for the construction of parallels from the respective points
at which the land boundaries reach the sea between Chile and Peru, and between the latter
[Peru] and Ecuador up to 200 nautical miles offshore.
[…]
1768
1769
Annex 298
D. P. O’Connell, The International Law of the Sea, Vol. I, 1982
1770
Annex 298
Annex 298
1771
1772
Annex 298
Annex 298
1773
1774
Annex 298
Annex 298
1775
1776
Annex 298
Annex 298
1777
1778
1779
Annex 299
L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. 1: Peace
(H. Lauterpacht (ed.)), 8th edn, 1955
1780
Annex 299
Annex 299
1781
1782
Annex 299
Annex 299
1783
1784
Annex 299
Annex 299
1785
1786
Annex 299
1787
Annex 300
F. Orrego Vicuña, “The Exclusive Economic Zone in a Latin
American Perspective: An Introduction”, in F. Orrego Vicuña
(ed.), The Exclusive Economic Zone – A Latin American
Perspective, 1984, p. 1
1788
Annex 300
Annex 300
1789
1790
Annex 300
Annex 300
1791
1792
Annex 300
1793
Annex 301
F. Orrego Vicuña, The Exclusive Economic Zone: Regime and
Legal Nature under International Law, 1989
1794
Annex 301
Annex 301
1795
1796
Annex 301
Annex 301
1797
1798
Annex 301
Annex 301
1799
1800
1801
Annex 302
F. Orrego Vicuña, “International Ocean Developments in the
Southeast Pacific: The Case of Chile”, in J. P. Craven,
J. Schneider and C. Stimson (eds), The International Implications of
Extended Maritime Jurisdiction in the Pacific, 1989, p. 221
1802
Annex 302
Annex 302
1803
1804
Annex 302
1805
Annex 303
F. M. Pfirter de Armas, “¿Perú: la marcha hacia el oeste?”,
in R. Zacklin (ed.), El Derecho del Mar en Evolución: La
Contribución de los Países Americanos, 1975, p. 295
1806
Annex 303
Annex 303
1807
1808
Annex 303
Annex 303
1809
[…]
With regard to the lateral delimitation with Ecuador and Chile, the Declaration
on the Maritime Zone of 1952 refers to the parallel corresponding to the point at which
the land frontier between the States reaches the sea; also article 1 of the Agreement
Relating to a Special Maritime Boundary Zone refers to the “parallel that constitutes
the maritime boundary between the countries.”
[…]
1810
1811
Annex 304
J. R. V. Prescott, The Political Geography of the Oceans, 1975
1812
Annex 304
1813
Annex 305
J. R. V. Prescott, The Maritime Political Boundaries of the
World, 1985
1814
Annex 305
Annex 305
1815
1816
Annex 305
Annex 305
1817
1818
1819
Annex 306
J. R. V. Prescott and C. Schofield, The Maritime Political
Boundaries of the World, 2nd edn, 2005
1820
Annex 306
Annex 306
1821
1822
Annex 306
1823
Annex 307
P. J.-M. Reuter, “Une ligne unique de délimitation des espaces
maritimes?”, in Mélanges Georges Perrin, 1984, p. 251
1824
Annex 307
Annex 307
1825
1826
1827
Annex 308
S. Rhee, “Equitable Solutions to the Maritime Boundary Dispute
between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine”,
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 75, 1981, p. 590
1828
Annex 308
Annex 308
1829
1830
1831
Annex 309
J. A. Roach and R. W. Smith, United States Responses to
Excessive Maritime Claims, 2nd edn, 1996
1832
Annex 309
Annex 309
1833
1834
Annex 309
Annex 309
1835
1836
Annex 309
1837
Annex 310
T. Scovazzi, “Turkey-Soviet Union (Territorial Sea)” in J. I.
Charney and L. M. Alexander (eds), International Maritime
Boundaries, Vol. II, 1993, p. 1685
1838
Annex 310
Annex 310
1839
1840
Annex 310
Annex 310
1841
1842
Annex 310
Annex 310
1843
1844
1845
Annex 311
G. J. Tanja, The Legal Determination of International Maritime
Boundaries, 1990
1846
Annex 311
Annex 311
1847
1848
Annex 311
1849
Annex 312
A. Ulloa, Para la Historia Internacional y Diplomática del
Perú: Chile, 1987
1850
Annex 312
Annex 312
1851
[…]
… with the clear-headedness that the patriot, the observer and the critic must have,
when they present to others the result of their study, I would be neglecting my moral
and intellectual duties if I did not say, like many think but few say in Peru, that the
Treaty of 1929 was a good settlement for our country.
[…]
1852
1853
Annex 313
L. Valencia Rodríguez, Análisis de la Posición Jurídica
Ecuatoriana en las Doscientas Millas, 1980
1854
Annex 313
Annex 313
1855
1856
Annex 313
[…]
The final important criticism against the [Santiago] Declaration refers to
the lack of a system of demarcation of the territorial waters. In this respect, suffice
it to note the fourth dispositive paragraph of the Declaration and article 1 of the
Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone (ratified by Ecuador
through Supreme Decree No. 2556 of 9 N ovember 1964, Official Registry 376,
of 18 [November 1964]), according to which the boundary of the territorial waters
between the neighbouring States is constituted by the parallel at the point at which
the land frontier of those States reaches the sea.
[…]
1857
Annex 314
E. Vergaray Lara, “El Mar del Perú es una Región Geográfica”,
Asociación Nacional de Geógrafos Peruanos, Anales, Vol. III,
1962
1858
Annex 314
Annex 314
1859
1860
Annex 314
Annex 314
1861
1862
Annex 314
[…]
The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PERUVIAN GEOGRA PHERS, being
aware of its leading work in the field of research which it undertakes, and considering the
importance of this task, has rightly sponsored the edition of “The Peruv ian Sea is a
Geographic Region” by Doctor Eráclides Vergaray Lara, a thesis that has the merit
of having been approved during the geograph ic days, organized by the Geographic
Society of Lima in 1949; at the Institute of Ge ograph y of the Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos on 15 June 1954; in the Seminar on the Law of
the Sea, organized by the Facul ty of Law of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos, between November and December 1959; and also approved in this First
National Congress of Ge ograph y.
[…]
2. – The extension. – This maritime region borders to the E. with our coastline
and is limited to the W. by an imaginary line that follows the sinuosity of the coastline.
It is located between the following coordinates: L. S. 3° 23' 33" at the level of the Point
of Boca de Capones. L. S. 18° 21' 03" at the level of the Pascana del Hueso boundary
marker, seashore. It has a longitude W. to the far North 80° 19' 16" and to the far South
70° 22' 56" to one side and its longitude W. to the other side arrives to the far North at
83° 44' 16" and to the far South at 73° 47' 56".
Moreover, its width in accordance with the declarations of our Government, by
Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947, (1) reaches 205 nautical miles (2) seaward;
because it is considered that up to these distances lies our continental shelf which
determines the territorial sea of Peru, …
[…]
1863
Annex 315
T. Wolff, Peruvian-United States Relations over Maritime
Fishing, Law of the Sea Institute University of Rhode Island,
Occasional Paper No. 4, 1970
1864
Annex 315
Annex 315
1865
1866
Annex 315
1867
Annex 316
R. Young, “Recent Developments with Respect to the
Continental Shelf”, American Journal of International Law,
Vol. 42, 1948, p. 849
1868
Annex 316
Annex 316
1869
1870
Annex 316
Annex 316
1871
1872
Annex 316
Annex 316
1873
1874
1875
Annex 317
J. Zavala, Consenso y Confrontación en la Delimitación de la
ZEE y de la Plataforma Continental, 1998
1876
Annex 317
Annex 317
1877
1878
Annex 317
Annex 317
1879
1880
Annex 317
Annex 317
1881
1882
Annex 317
[…]
To delimit the marine and submarine areas located between Colombia and Ecuador in
the Pacific Ocean, both States decided to apply the delimitation methods established in the
Santiago Declaration, adopted by Chile, Peru and Ecuador on 19 August 1952.
[…]
To delimit the seabed and subsoil of the sea adjacent to their coasts, the three States
decided to establish a frontier line drawn along the parallels of latitude, from the point where
the land frontier between them reaches the sea (art. IV). This way, the frontier line between
Chile and Peru extends along the parallel of latitude South 18º 23' 03", which coincides with
the parallel of latitude with which the two States have set point No. 1 of their land frontier.
[…]
1883
OTHER DOCUMENTS
1884
1885
Annex 318
Perupetro, Estadística Petrolera 2008
Website of Perupetro
1886
Annex 318
1
2
3
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 MAPAS
VALOR DE LA CANASTA DE HIDROCARBUROS LÍQUIDOS
Y PRECIOS DEL GAS NATURAL
INGRESO POR CONTRATO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DEL CANON
CONTRATOS VIGENTES AL 31.12.2008
CONVENIOS VIGENTES AL 31.12.2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE GAS NATURAL
PRODUCCIÓN DE CAMPO DE PETRÓLEO
PRODUCCIÓN DE CAMPO DE GAS NATURAL
PRODUCCIÓN
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE HIDROCARBUROS LÍQUIDOS
ESTADO DE POZOS
RESERVAS
CONTENIDO
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO
ACTIVIDAD SÍSMICA
PERFORACIÓN DE POZOS
Annex 318
1887
1
A 6
B 7
2
A 9
B 10
C 11
3
A 13
B
14
C 15
D 20
E 21
F 22
G 23
4
4.1
A 26
B 27
C 28
D 29
E
30
F 31
G 32
H 33
I
34
J
35
4.2
A 37
B 38
C 39
D 40
E 41
PRODUCCIÓN MENSUAL 2008
PRODUCCIÓN MESUAL EN UNIDADES DE CALOR 2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE GAS NATURAL1998-2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA POR ZONA GEOGRÁFICA 2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE HIDROCARBUROS
LÍQUIDOS - SELVA CENTRAL
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE HIDROCARBUROS
LÍQUIDOS - SELVA SUR
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE GAS NATURAL
RESUMEN PRODUCCIÓN 2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE HIDROCARBUROS LIQUIDOS
1998-2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE PETRÓLEO - NOR-OESTE
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE PETRÓLEO - ZÓCALO
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE PETRÓLEO - SELVA NORTE
RESUMEN DE PRODUCCIÓN 2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA MENSUAL 2008
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA POR ZONAS GEOGRÁFICAS 2008
CALIDAD DEL PETRÓLEO 2008
PRODUCCIÓN
PERFORACIÓN DE POZOS
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA DE HIDROCARBUROS LÍQUIDOS
POZOS EXPLORATORIOS PERFORADOS 1998-2008
POZOS DE DESARROLLO PERFORADOS 1998-2008
TOTAL DE POZOS PERFORADOS 1998-2008
RESUMEN DE POZOS PERFORADOS POR CONTRATO 2008
POZOS EXPLORATORIOS Y CONFIRMATORIOS
PERFORADOS 2008
POZOS DE DESARROLLO PERFORADOS 2008
POZOS PERFORADOS POR ZONA GEOGRÁFICA 1998-2008
SÍSMICA 2D REGISTRADA POR CONTRATO 1998-2008
SÍSMICA 3D REGISTRADA POR CONTRATO 1998-2008
ACTIVIDAD SÍSMICA
SÍSMICA REGISTRADA DURANTE EL 2008
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO 2008
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO 1998-2008
INDICE
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO
2
1888
Annex 318
4.3
A 43
B 46
C 46
4.4
A 48
B 49
5
A 51
B
52
6
A
54
B 55
C 56
D 57
7
A 59
B
60
C 61
8
A 63
B 64
C 65
9
A 67
B 68
C 69
D
70
NÚMERO DE CONTRATOS 1998-2008
AREAS DE CUENCAS SEDIMENTARIAS BAJO CONTRATO
Y CONVENIO AL 31.12.2008
CONTRATOS EN EXPLOTACIÓN AL 31.12.2008
CONTRATOS EN EXPLORACIÓN AL 31.12.2008
DISTRIBUCIÓN DEL CANON/SOBRECANO 1998-2008
DISTRIBUCIÓN DEL CANON/SOBRECANO 2008
CONTRATOS VIGENTES AL 31.12.2008
INGRESO POR CONTRATO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DEL CANON
INGRESO POR REGALÍAS POR CONTRATO 2008
COMPONENTES DE LA CANASTA
VALOR DE LA CANASTA MENSUAL DE PRECIOS DE
HIDROCARBUROS LÍQUIDOS 2008
PRECIO MENSUAL DEL GAS NATURAL 2008
RESERVAS DE PETRÓLEO 1997-2007
RESERVAS DE LÍQUIDOS DEL GAS NATURAL 1997-2007
RESERVAS DE GAS NATURAL 1997-2007
VALOR DE LA CANASTA DE HIDROCARBUROS LÍQUIDOS
Y PRECIOS DEL GAS NATURAL
RESERVAS
RESUMEN DE RESERVAS DE HIDROCARBUROS
AL 31.12.2007
ESTADO DE POZOS
ESTADO DE POZOS AL 31.12.2008
POZOS PRODUCTORES DE PETROLEO Y GAS NATURAL 1998-
2008
PRODUCCIÓN DE CAMPO DE GAS NATURAL
PRODUCCIÓN MENSUAL 2008
PRODUCCIÓN ANUAL 1998-2008
PRODUCCIÓN POR YACIMIENTO SELVA 2008
PRODUCCIÓN DE CAMPO DE PETRÓLEO
PRODUCCIÓN POR YACIMIENTO NOR-OESTE 2008
PRODUCCIÓN POR YACIMIENTO ZÓCALO 2008
3
Annex 318
1889
10
A 72
B 72
C
73
D 73
E OTROS CONVENIOS VIGENTES AL 31.12.2008 73
11
A
75
B
76
MAPA DE CONTRATOS Y CONVENIOS DEL PAÍS
AL 31.12.2008
MAPA DE CONTRATOS Y CONVENIOS EN EL NOR-OESTE
AL 31.12.2008
CONVENIOS DE VALOR AGREGADO 2008
MAPAS
CONVENIOS DE EVALUACIÓN TÉCNICA 2008
CONVENIOS DE EVALUACIÓN TERMINADOS EN EL 2008
CONVENIOS DE EVALUACIÓN PARA PROMOCIÓN
TERMINADOS EN EL 2008
CONVENIOS VIGENTES AL 31.12.2008
1890
Annex 318
TOTAL PROMEDIO
PETRÓLEO LGN (Bls) (Bls/d)
NOR-OESTE 9,158,644 - 9,158,644 25,024 20.8
ZÓCALO 4,805,579 - 4,805,579 13,130 10.9
SELVA NORTE 13,885,691 - 13,885,691 37,939 31.6
SELVA CENTRAL 177,167 976,226 1,153,393 3,151 2.6
SELVA SUR - 14,927,069 14,927,069 40,784 34.0
TOTAL 28,027,081 15,903,295 43,930,376 120,028 100.0
PRODUCCIÓN
FISCALIZADA
(Bls)
PRODUCCIÓN FISCALIZADA POR ZONA GEOGRÁFICA - 2008
ZONA (%)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
MM Bls
PETRÓLEO 9.2 4.8 13.9 0.2 -
LGN - - - 1.0 14.9
NOR-OESTE ZÓCALO SELVA
NORTE
SELVA
CENTRAL SELVA SUR
28
Annex 318
1891
FISCALIZED Production by geographic zone - 2008
Zone
FISCALIZED
Production (Bbl) Total AVERAGE
(%)
OIL LNG (Bbl) (Bbl/d)
North -West 9,158,644 - 9,158,644 25,024 20.8
Shelf 4,805,579 - 4,805,579 13,130 10.9
North Forest 13,885,691 - 13,885,691 37,939 31.6
Central Forest 177,167 976,226 1,153,393 3,151 2.6
South Forest - 14,927,069 14,927,069 40,784 34.0
TOTAL 28,027,081 15,903,295 43,930,376 120,028 100.0
1892
1893
Annex 319
J. A. del Busto Duthurburu, Los Peruanos en la Antártida, 1989
1894
Annex 319
Annex 319
1895
1896
Annex 319
Annex 319
1897
[…]
Wednesday, 6 January 1988
[…]
Around four in the afternoon, the Second Commandant gave a speech about Antarctica to
the crew, in order that they understand fully the topic and clarify any doubts they may have
had.
One and a half hours later, just before sunset, the sky turned red and we crossed the boundary
parallel with Chile.
[…]
1898
1899
Annex 320
FAO Fisheries Statistics Query Results.
Website of the Food and Argriculture Organization
1900
Annex 320
FAO Fisheries Statistical Query Results
World Catch in 1970 by country: Quantity (tonnes)
Land Area Ocean Area 1970
Canada Marine areas 1 127 098
Chile Marine areas 1 101 200
China Marine areas 1 592 500
Colombia Marine areas 16 000
Denmark Marine areas 1 183 900
Ecuador Marine areas 80 820
Iceland Marine areas 722 400
India Marine areas 941 400
Japan Marine areas 7 225 148
Norway Marine areas 2 895 767
Peru Marine areas 12 467 900
South Africa Marine areas 1 204 700
Spain Marine areas 1 213 864
United Kingdom Marine areas 1 017 867
United States of America Marine areas 1 569 300
Grand total 34 359 864
© FAO - Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Service - 28/08/2009
Annex 320
1901
FAO Fisheries Statistical Query Results
World Catch by year: Quantity (tonnes)
Land Area 1952 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
Africa 1 131 700 1 607 100 1 788 781 1 913 449 2 019 949 2 267 988 2 298 319
Americas 2 623 663 6 849 331 8 835 392 10 930 909 10 834 756 13 347 785 11 445 849
Asia 6 230 479 9 315 488 9 936 656 10 158 638 10 184 345 10 895 165 11 614 470
Europe 6 472 109 7 024 114 7 386 272 7 491 595 7 847 827 8 572 086 9 724 495
Oceania 70 200 99 189 100 234 106 315 109 096 106 773 112 127
Un. Sov. Soc. Rep. 1 018 400 2 175 476 2 287 413 2 623 495 3 161 392 3 508 448 3 954 396
Grand total of
world catch 17 546 551 27 070 698 30 334 748 33 224 401 34 157 365 38 698 245 39 149 656
© FAO - Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Service - 10/11/2009
Peru’s Catch by year: Quantity (tonnes)
Land Area 1952 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
Peru 106 600 3 496 600 5 208 800 6 877 500 6 815 700 9 028 100 7 376 700
© FAO - Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Service - 10/11/2009
Peru’s Share of the Total World Catch by year
1952 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
Grand total
of world
catch
17 546 551 27 070 698 30 334 748 33 224 401 34 157 365 38 698 245 39 149 656
Peru’s catch 106 600 3 496 600 5 208 800 6 877 500 6 815 700 9 028 100 7 376 700
Peru’s share
of the total
world catch
by year
0,60% 12,9% 17.2% 20.7% 19.9% 23.3% 18.8%
Land Area
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Un. Sov. Soc. Rep.
Grand total of
world catch
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 2007
2 515 146 2 806 118 3 199 861 3 134 728 2 526 902 4 398 744
13 365 147 14 361 276 15 336 870 13 711 778 17 502 689 17 580 208
12 113 487 13 025 100 14 144 589 14 682 149 15 416 802 30 837 511
10 430 033 10 887 961 10 667 676 10 095 139 10 765 706 11 674 073
123 054 124 277 125 707 127 005 147 243 1 071 362
4 248 676 4 605 847 5 070 058 5 615 399 6 151 031 -
42 795 543 45 810 579 48 544 761 47 366 198 52 510 373 65 561 898
Land Area 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 2007
Peru 8 702 500 10 046 500 10 433 500 9 132 300 12 467 900 6 655 123
1902
Annex 320
Statistical Query Results
Production: Quantity (t)
Land Area Ocean Area 1952 1970 2007
Chile Marine areas 95 300 1 101 200 3 567 232
© FAO - Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Service - 28/10/2009
Peru 106 600 3 496 600 5 208 800 6 877 500 6 815 700 9 028 100 7 376 700
© FAO - Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Service - 10/11/2009
Peru’s Share of the Total World Catch by year
1952 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
Grand total
of world
catch
17 546 551 27 070 698 30 334 748 33 224 401 34 157 365 38 698 245 39 149 656
Peru’s catch 106 600 3 496 600 5 208 800 6 877 500 6 815 700 9 028 100 7 376 700
Peru’s share
of the total
world catch
by year
0,60% 12,9% 17.2% 20.7% 19.9% 23.3% 18.8%
Land Area 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 2007
Peru 8 702 500 10 046 500 10 433 500 9 132 300 12 467 900 6 655 123
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 2007
Grand total
of world
catch
42 795 543 45 810 579 48 544 761 47 366 198 52 510 373 65 561 898
Peru’s catch 8 702 500 10 046 500 10 433 500 9 132 300 12 467 900 6 655 123
Peru’s share
of the total
world catch
by year
20.3% 21.9% 21.5% 19.2% 23.7% 10.1%