Volume III - Annexes 76-144

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE MARITIME DISPUTE (PERU v. CHILE) REJOINDER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CHILE VOLUME III ANNEXES 76 – 144 11 JULY 2011

VOLUME III ANNEXES 76 - 144 OFFICIAL TEXTS,OFFICIAL STATEMENTS,OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED TEXTS AND INTERNAL DOCUMENTS:PERUAnnex 76Supreme Resolution No. 923 of 3 August 1951 447 Annex 77Ministerial Resolution No. 478 of 9 March 1955 451 Annex 78Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress, Report of 4 May 1955 concerning the Agreements and Conventions signed by Peru, Chile and Ecuador at Santiago, on 18 August 1952, and at Lima on 4 December 1954 459Annex 79Records of the Second 1954 Extraordinary Legislature of Congress, Second Session held on Thursday 5 May 1955473Annex 80Official Letter No. 5-4-Y/68 of 11 July 1955 from the chargé d’affaires to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs493Annex 81República Peruana, Diario de los Debates del Congreso Nacional, Vol. I, 1955 497Annex 82Supreme Decree of 5 January 1956: Regulation for Fishing Permits to Foreign Vessels 505Annex 83Explanatory Report of 5 December 1963, signed by the Minister of Aeronautics513Annex 84Geographic Advisor’s Office of the National Institute of Planning in the Office of the President, AtlasHistórico Geográfico de Paisajes Peruanos, 1963-1970 521Annex 85Ministry of Navy, Lista de Faros 1971 – Costa del Perú,1971527
i
Annex 86Official Declaration by the President of Chile of 23 June 1947 as published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Instrumentos Nacionales e Internacionales sobre Derecho del Mar, 1971 531Annex 87Memorandum of 18 November 1976 of the Embassy of Peru in Chile535Annex 88Directorate of Hydrography and Navigation of the Navy,Lista de Faros y Señales Náuticas – Costa del Perú, 5th edn, 1976 539Annex 89Supreme Decree No. 015-86-EM/VME of 21 August 1986 granting Block S-2 of the Titicaca Basin to Petroperu S.A. 543Annex 90Supreme Decree No. 002-87-MA of 11 June 1987 approving the Regulation of Captaincies and Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities547Annex 91Ministry of Foreign Affairs, El Perú en Gráficos,published in El Comercio, 16 October 1988 559Annex 92Press Release No. 29-90 of 24 April 1990 issued by the Directorate of Information of the Navy 569Annex 93Directorial Resolution No. 347-91-DC/MGP of 20 December 1991 of the Directorate-General of Captaincies and Coastguard573Annex 94Directorial Resolution No. 0313-94/DCG of 23 September 1994 of the Directorate-General of Captaincies and Coastguard 581Annex 95Law No. 26620 of 30 May 1996 on Control and Surveillance of Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities591Annex 96Directorial Resolution No. 0403-2000/DCG of 7 September 2000 of the Directorate-General of Captaincies and Coastguard595
ii
Annex 97Law No. 27415 of 25 January 2001: Territorial Demarcation of the Province of Tacna, Department of Tacna601Annex 98Directorate of Hydrography and Navigation of the Navy,Derrotero de la Costa del Perú, Vol. II, 3rd edn, 2001607Annex 99Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress of the Republic concerning Draft Legislative Resolution No. 813/2001-CR, 4 October 2004617Annex 100Letter No. V.200-3762 of 27 November 2009 from the Captaincy of Callao to Merchant Shipping Companies 647Annex 101Law No. 29687 of 19 May 2011, amending Law No. 28621 of 3 November 2005: Baselines Law of the Maritime Dominion of Peru651Annex 102National Institute of Statistics and Information of Peru, Perú: Compendio Estadístico 2008657TEXTS AND DOCUMENTS OF THIRDSTATESAnnex 103Report of 5 July 1936 on the Inauguration of the Mark at the Northern Terminal of the Boundary between Surinam and British Guiana, exhibited as Annex 2 to the Counter-Memorial of Suriname 665Annex 104Costa Rican Law No. 116 of 27 July 1948 Proclaiming National Sovereignty over the Continental Shelf and the Epicontinental Sea 669Annex 105Honduran Decree No. 25 of 28 January 1950 677 Annex 106United States Department of State, Memorandum of Conversation of 2 May 1955 entitled “Marginal Seas Conflict with Ecuador”681
iii
Annex 107Note No. 7811 2006/GM of 17 February 2006 from the Ecuadorean Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs685Annex 108Press Release No. 073 of 7 February 2008 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador 691Annex 109Ecuadorean Presidential Decree No. 450 of 2 August 2010695DOCUMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER BODIESAnnex 110Institut de Droit International, “Projet de Règlement relatif à la Mer Territoriale en temps de paix”, Session de Paris 703Annex 111League of Nations, “Amended Draft Convention communicated to various Governments by the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, with Questionnaire No. 2, 29 January 1926”, League of Nations document C.196.M.70.1927.V,American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929 707Annex 112International Law Association, “Draft Convention on Law of Maritime Jurisdiction in Time of Peace, 1926”, American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929 711Annex 113American Institute of International Law, “Project No. 10 on ‘National Domain’ submitted to the International Commission of Jurists at Rio de Janeiro”, April 1927, American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929 715Annex 114Institut de Droit International, “Projet de Règlement relatif à la Mer Territoriale en temps de paix”, Session de Stockholm 717
iv
Annex 115Draft Convention on Territorial Waters, prepared by the Research in International Law of the Harvard Law School,American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929 721Annex 116United Nations, Summary Record of the 69th meeting of the ILC, 17 July 1950 725Annex 117Inter-American Juridical Committee, “Draft Convention on Territorial Waters and Related Questions”, 30 July 1952 731Annex 118United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur to the ILC (4th session of the ILC (1952)) 741Annex 119United Nations, Comments by Governments on the draft articles on the continental shelf and related subjects prepared by the ILC at its third Session in 1951(5th session of the ILC (1953)) 747Annex 120Resolution VII adopted by the CPPS at the 1954 CPPS Meeting, Santiago 753Annex 121United Nations, Report of the ILC to the United Nations General Assembly (17th session of the ILC (1966)), Commentary to Draft Article 2 on the Law of Treaties 759Annex 122Foreword by Dr. García Sayán, Secretary-General of the CPPS, Compilación de Acuerdos y Resoluciones del Sistema Marítimo del Pacífico Sur (1952-1969),1969765Annex 123Report of the Ad hoc Joint IHO/IMCO Committee on Promulgation of Radio Navigational Warnings, 1st session, document PRNW I/7, 31 May 1973 769Annex 124United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, Vol. V, 1973 775
v
Annex 125IMCO, Sub-Committee on Radiocommunications — 15th session, Agenda item 7: International Co-ordination of Promulgating Navigational Warnings to Shipping — Communication Aspects: Report of the Working Group on Radio Navigational Warnings,document COM XV/WP.11, 18 September 1975 779Annex 126IMCO, Group of Experts on Search and Rescue - 5th session: Report to the Maritime Safety Committee,document SAR V/6, 15 June 1977783Annex 127IMCO, Assembly - 10th session, Committee II, Reportof Committee II to the Plenary of the Assembly at its 10th session, document A X/C.2/2, 14 November 1977 787Annex 128Plan for the Establishment of a World-Wide Navigational Warning Service, adopted by IMO Assembly Resolution A. 381(X), 14 November 1977 791Annex 129J. M. Bákula, Secretary-General, Evaluación de los Convenios de la CPPS,May 1978 797Annex 130United Nations Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, The Law of the Sea – Maritime Boundary Agreements (1970-1984), 1987 817Annex 131CPPS,Publicación de la Secretaría General, 1999 821 Annex 132United Nations, Communication M.Z.N.37.2000.LOS (Maritime Zone Notification) from the Secretary-General of the United Nations entitled “Deposit by Chile of charts showing normal and straight baselines, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf”, 29 September 2000825Annex 133IMO, Global SAR Plan Containing Information on the Current Availability of SAR Services, 22 March 2005 827Annex 134United Nations, Eighth Report on Unilateral Acts of States by Mr V. Rodríguez Cedeño, Special Rapporteur, 26 May 2005 833
vi
Annex 135IMO, Global SAR Plan Containing Information on the Current Availability of SAR Services, 21 April 2006 847Annex 136United Nations, Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating legal obligations, with commentaries thereto (58th session of the ILC (2006))853Annex 137Final Report of the 13th Joint Oceanographic Regional Cruise in the Southeast Pacific 859PRESSARTICLESAnnex 138J. M. Peña Prado, Address to the Congress of Peru, reproduced in La Crónica, 7 May 1955 867Annex 139“Frontera Marítima Perú y Chile Demarcarán”, ElExpreso, 27 June 1969 873Annex 140“Torres y Señalización en la Frontera Marítima: Tacna - Arica”, La Voz de Tacna, 1 July 1969 877Annex 141“Chile y Perú Analizan Delimitación Marina”, ElMercurio, 12 June 1986 881Annex 142“Cancillería chilena informa sobre delimitación con Perú”,El Comercio, 17 June 1986 885Annex 143“Perú y Chile continuarán con actividades pesqueras”, El Peruano, 16 August 2007 889Annex 144Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, Chilecomprometido con la democracia y el orden constitucional, Press Release No. 758 of 11 October 2010893
vii

OFFICIAL TEXTS, OFFICIAL STATEMENTS, OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED TEXTS AND INTERNAL DOCUMENTS: PERU
445
446
Annex 76
Supreme Resolution No. 923 of 3 August 1951
El Peruano, 10 August 1951 447
448
Annex 76
[Transcript]
Texto Oficial de Geografía del Perú
----
RESOLUCION SUPREMA No. 923
Lima, 3 de Agosto de 1951.
Visto el informe del Jurado encargado de estudiar los trabajos presentados para la preparación del Texto Oficial de Geografía del Perú, según lo dispuesto por el Decreto Supremo de 18 de abril de 1950:
SE RESUELVE:
1º.– Aprobar el dictamen del expresado Jurado, declarando que don Pedro Martínez de Pinillos, con el seudónimo Lassie, ha obtenido el primer lugar en el concurso promovido al efecto, siendo, en consecuencia acreedor al premio establecido en el inciso d) del Decreto Supremo de 18 de abril de 1950;
2º.- Autorizar la impresión del Texto Oficial de Geografía del Perú, de que es autor don Pedro Martínez de Pinillos, quien deberá introducir previamente las modificaciones que en pliego aparte ha sugerido el Jurado.
3º.- Autorizar, asimismo a la Dirección de Administración y Control del Ministerio de Educación Pública, a fin de que gire un libramiento a la orden del Habilitado General, por la suma Diez Mil Soles Oro (S|o. 10,000.00), cantidad que deberá ser entregada al concursante favorecido, don Pedro Martínez de Pinillos, aplicándose el egreso a la partida No. 155 del Pliego Noveno del Presupuesto General vigente.
4º.- Dar las gracias a los miembros de la precitada Comisión por la importante labor realizada.
Regístrese y comuníquese.
Rúbrica del señor Presidente de la República.
MENDOZA.
Annex 76
449
[Translation]
Official Textbook of Geography of Peru
----
SUPREME RESOLUTION No. 923
Lima, 3 August 1951
Taking into account the report of the Commission in charge of studying the works submitted for the preparation of the Official Textbook of Geography of Peru, as provided by Supreme Decree of 18 April 1950;
IT IS RESOLVED:
1.- To approve the report of the abovementioned Commission declaring that Mr. Pedro Martínez de Pinillos, with the pseudonym Lassie, has been awarded first place in the competition promoted to that effect, therefore winning the prize set out in paragraph d) of Supreme Decree of 18 April 1950;
2.- To authorize the printing of the Official Textbook of Geography of Peru, authored by Mr. Pedro Martínez de Pinillos, who shall adopt the amendments suggested by the Jury in a separate document.
3.- To authorize the Directorate of Administration and Control of the Ministry of Education to issue an order of payment to the General Paymaster in the sum of Ten Thousand Soles (S|o. 10,000.00), such amount to be delivered to the winning contestant, Mr. Pedro Martínez de Pinillos, the expenditure being debited from item No. 155 of the Ninth List of the General Budget in force.
4.- To express gratitude to the members of the abovementioned Commission for the important work done.
Be it registered and communicated.
Initials of the President of the Republic.
MENDOZA.
450
Annex 76
Annex 77
Ministerial Resolution No. 478 of 9 March 1955
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
451
452
Annex 77
embassy of peru
Lima, 9 March 1955
MINISTERIAL RESOLUTION No. 478.
In light of the attached application submitted by Mr. Stephen H. Watson, American citizen and Executive Director of the “Corporación del Pacífico Sur S.A.”, requesting authorization on behalf of a group of fishermen from the United States of America, to bring to Peru American-flagged vessels to fish tuna and skipjack within the 200-mile Maritime Zone in which the Peruvian State extends its jurisdiction in conformity with what was established in the Agreements of Santiago of 1952, and Lima of 1954; and
Having regard to the supplementary reports submitted by your Representative in the country, Mr. Antonio López de Castilla, Managing Director of the abovementioned Corporation in which it is specified that the permit application is for vessels: “PACIFIC STAR SEINER”, “WEST COAST”, “HELEN’S” and “PACIFIC QUEEN”, whose owners have given the relevant credentials to Mr. Stephen H. Watson, authorizing him to apply for the necessary permit in order for these vessels to be able to work in the Maritime Zone established by the Peruvian laws; and taking into consideration;
That in relation to these fishing activities a commercial entity named “Corporación del Pacífico Sur S.A.” has been constituted in this city, which will act as an Agent of the ship-owners of these vessels, and that will take charge of all the operations and have responsibility for absolute compliance with the laws, resolutions and regulations in force in Peru;
That the purpose of the Supreme Government is not to impede fishing operations by foreigners within the Maritime Zone under its jurisdiction, but to regulate them so that they are carried out under conditions that ensure an exploitation ad perpetum of one of the renewable natural resources of the sea on which the alimentation of the Peruvian people relies;
That the Peruvian Section of the Permanent Commission of the Conference on Exploitation and Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific has carefully fixed the number of foreign vessels that can operate in each of the historical shoals of Máncora and Chimbote without compromising its existence;
That under these conditions and while the definitive Regulation for the granting of permits for maritime fishing and hunting by foreigners in the Peruvian Maritime Zone is approved by the Permanent Commission, it is appropriate to grant special authorizations to those who, having absolutely recognized the sovereignty of the country in its Maritime Zone, wish to carry out legitimate fishing operations under the protection of Peruvian laws and regulations; and
Annex 77
453
454
Annex 77
Having due regard to what was reported by the Directorate of Fisheries and Hunting of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Peruvian Section of the Permanent Commission of the Conference on Exploitation and Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific, and the Directorate of Captaincies; and
Having heard the opinion of the Head of the Chiefs of Staff of the Navy;
IT IS RESOLVED THAT:
1. The “Corporación del Pacífico Sur S.A.” is hereby authorized to bring to Peru American-flagged fishing vessels “PACIFIC STAR SEINER”, “WEST COAST”, “HELEN’S” and “PACIFIC QUEEN”, to operate in the country within the 200-mile Maritime Zone.
2. The abovementioned vessels shall enter into and exit from the Port of Talara for purposes of mandatory maritime and fiscal control.
3. The fishing that they might have done in the free sea, beyond the 200 miles, before entering the Peruvian jurisdiction, shall be duly controlled upon arrival of the vessels to Talara and it shall be deducted from the payment of the respective dues.
4. The fish obtained from the abovementioned vessels shall be nationalized and they shall pay export rights in the amount of US$ 8.00 (eight Dollars, American currency) for each ton of fish.
5. The Company will take onboard these vessels every person that the Directorate of Fishing and Hunting, the Ministry of Economy and the Directorate of Captaincies or the Harbour Masters may appoint for the technical and customs control of the fish while the vessels carry out operations, and will give them accommodation and food.
6. The bait they are going to use for the fishing will be obtained by the same vessels, its sale or transfer to other vessels being prohibited.
7. Fishing of anchovy, machete and sardines with industrial purposes is absolutely prohibited.
8. These vessels are prohibited to transfer fish to any other vessel flying a foreign flag, whether in the high seas or at the port, except in the case of export of the product, in which case the transfer can take place but only in the port with the supervision of the maritime and customs authorities.
Annex 77
455
456
Annex 77
9. In the port of destination, the Company shall obtain a certification of the quantity of fish onboard from the respective Port or Customs Authority and submit it to the closest Peruvian Consul so that he sends it to the Ministry of Economy.
10. The present authorization involves the use of the port facilities, supplies, fuel, etc., which the abovementioned vessels might require for the duration of the present authorization.
11. The Company is obliged to comply with the other conditions set out in the application [submitted] by the Executive Director of Corporación del Pacífico Sur S.A., dated 17 January 1955.
12. All the fishing activities carried out by these vessels will be subject to the control of the Directorate of Fisheries and Hunting, which will indicate the limitations and prohibitions and will dictate the technical provisions that it deems most appropriate for the preservation of fishing resources.
13. The Company and the owners of the vessels shall bear full responsibility for any infractions of the national laws and regulations committed, and they will deposit the vessels’ documentation with the Captaincy of Talara as a guarantee, obtaining in exchange a copy of the present Ministerial Resolution which authorizes them to operate in Peruvian waters.
14. Neither the Company, nor the owners of the vessels will have the right to any claim before national or foreign authorities for the breach of the Contract by either party.
15. This authorization is valid for a period of one year from the date of the present Resolution, an extension being possible subject to 30 days’ prior notice from the Permanent Commission.
[…]
Annex 77
457
458
Annex 77
Annex 78
Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress, Report of 4 May 1955 concerning the Agreements and Conventions signed by Peru, Chile and Ecuador at Santiago, on 18 August 1952, and at Lima on 4 December 1954
Annex 6 to the Reply, citing Archives of the Congress of Peru
459
460
Annex 78
Annex 78
461
462
Annex 78
Annex 78
463
464
Annex 78
Annex 78
465
466
Annex 78
Annex 78
467
468
Annex 78
Annex 78
469
470
Annex 78
[Transcript]
El Decreto 781 es, en concepto de vuestra Comisión dictaminadora, obligado antecedente de los Convenios y Acuerdos Tripartitos de los que nuestro país es uno de los signatarios. Dicho Decreto se justifica por fundadas consideraciones doctrinarias, legislativas y de hecho sobre el mar territorial.
[…]
A tenor del artículo 1º del Convenio sobre Medidas de Vigilancia y Control de las Zonas Marítimas corresponde a cada País signatario, efectuar la vigilancia y control de su zona con los medios u organismos que estime necesarios, quedando concertada una estrecha cooperación para dicho fin.
[…]
Finalmente, el Convenio sobre Zona Especial Fronteriza, teniendo en cuenta las dificultades que confrontan las pequeñas embarcaciones de gente de mar con escasos conocimientos de náutica para determinar su posición en alta mar y no incurrir en violaciones involuntarias de fronteras marítimas entre los Estados vecinos, fija en tres artículos, una zona especial reservada exclusivamente a los nacionales de cada País.
[…]
[firmado]
______________________________
Domingo López de la Torre
[firmado]
_______________________________
Juan Manuel Peña Prado
[firmado]
______________________________
Enrique Silva Elguera
[firmado]
_______________________________
Gerardo Balbuena
[firmado]
______________________________
Rómulo Jordan Cánepa
[firmado]
_______________________________
Lincoln Pinzás Gallardo
______________________________
Manuel Cacho Sousa
_______________________________
Rafael Puga Estrada
[firmado]
______________________________
Octavio Alva
[firmado]
_______________________________
Ernesto Torres Gonzales
[firmado]
______________________________
Alberto Arispe
[firmado]
_______________________________
Guillermo Cáceres Gaudet
Annex 78
471
[Translation]
Decree 781 of 1 August 1947 is, in the view of the reporting Committee, a necessary antecedent to the Tripartite Conventions and Agreements to which our country is a signatory. The abovementioned Decree is based on doctrinal, legislative and factual considerations regarding the territorial sea.
[…]
Pursuant to article 1 of the Agreement Relating to Measures of Supervision and Control in the Maritime Zones of the Signatory Countries, it is incumbent upon each signatory Country to undertake surveillance and control of its zone through the means and agencies which it deems necessary, close cooperation for the abovementioned purposes having been agreed upon.
[…]
Finally, the Agreement Relating to a Special Frontier Zone, taking into account the difficulties faced by small vessels operated by sailors with scarce nautical knowledge to determine their bearings in the high sea and to avoid committing involuntary violations of maritime frontiers between the neighbouring States, establishes in three articles a special zone exclusively reserved for the nationals of each Country.
[…]
[signed]
______________________________
Domingo López de la Torre
[signed]
_______________________________
Juan Manuel Peña Prado
[signed]
______________________________
Enrique Silva Elguera
[signed]
_______________________________
Gerardo Balbuena
[signed]
______________________________
Rómulo Jordan Cánepa
[signed]
_______________________________
Lincoln Pinzás Gallardo
______________________________
Manuel Cacho Sousa
_______________________________
Rafael Puga Estrada
[signed]
______________________________
Octavio Alva
[signed]
_______________________________
Ernesto Torres Gonzales
[signed]
______________________________
Alberto Arispe
[signed]
_______________________________
Guillermo Cáceres Gaudet
472
Annex 78
Annex 79
Records of the Second 1954 Extraordinary Legislature of Congress, Second Session held on Thursday 5 May 1955
Annex 7 to the Reply, citing Archives of the Congress of the Republic of Peru
473
474
Annex 79
Annex 79
475
476
Annex 79
-6-
The RAPPORTEUR read the documents related to the Agreements and Conventions signed by Peru, Chile and Ecuador on the Exploitation and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific, as well as the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and proposed a substitute formula.
Deputy PEÑA PRADO stated that he was commissioned to convey to the Congress that the Executive Branch accepted the alternative draft law.
The PRESIDENT stated that, the Government having accepted the formula proposed by the Foreign Affairs Committee, he put to debate the conclusions of the abovementioned report, which support the substitute draft.
Deputy PEÑA PRADO as a member of the aforementioned [Foreign Affairs] Commission sustained the report about the Agreements.
Deputy ALVARO GOURVIL briefly summarized the development of cetaceans fishing in South America; he considered that, in the treaties and Conventions, Chile intends to establish a condominium in the territorial seas of the South Pacific and to consolidate its fisheries policy, avoiding expansion of the national whaling industry; he formulated observations to clause five of the Agreement on the System of Sanctions, the second clause of the Agreement Relating to the Granting of Permits for the Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific, and the second clause of the Convention on the Annual Ordinary Meeting of the Permanent Commission; and he set out the reasons for which he would vote in favour of some conventions and against others which, in his view, [were] detrimental to national sovereignty.
Senator BARREDA stated that Peru did not accept that other countries fix [the extent of] the zone in which [Peru] can establish its maritime sovereignty; he set out the true aim of the National Convention of Washington of 1940; the goals pursued by the conservation of natural resources
Annex 79
477
478
Annex 79
-7-
//-
of America and [pursued] through the measures taken by some countries and by Peru for the conservation of some species; and, after referring to the tenor of the observations of Mr. Alvaro Gourvil, he declared himself in favour of the Agreements.
Deputy DEL AGUILA set out the historical and juridical bases which inspire the Agreements and clearly stated that the [Agreements] do not affect the freedom of the seas, but rather regulate fishing in the territorial seas of the signatory countries; and he expressed that he would vote in favour of them.
Deputy PEÑA PRADO answered the objections made by Mr. Alvaro Gourvil and explained the scope of the clauses that the latter had objected.
Deputy CHIRINOS PACHECO and Senator LUNA noted the historical importance of the Agreements and declared that they would vote in favour of the draft.
Deputy VILDOSO REJAS, after stating his opinion in favour of the Agreements, formulated some comments on the first clause of the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone and advocated for the provision contained therein to be combined with the third point of the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and supreme decree No.-23 of 12 January 1955, specifying the cartographic technique for the drawing of the 200-mile distance line.
Deputy ALVARO GOURVIL set out further reasons in support of his opinion.
He was interrupted by Deputy PEÑA PRADO.
Deputy PINZAS, in his capacity as member of the reporting Committee, set out the bases from which the Conventions and Agreements were inspired and answered the points raised by Mr. Alvaro Gourvil.
Annex 79
479
480
Annex 79
-8-
Senator CASTILLO set out his opinions with regard to the Conventions subject to discussion; he declared that Peru must have full sovereignty over its territorial sea, without limits [imposed] by international organizations; and, after adducing other reasons with regard to the purpose of the Agreements, he proposed, as a preliminary question, that the session be suspended to continue the next day, in order that the Foreign Affairs Committee could gather the observations made over the course of the debate or in order that the Congress formulate reservations to the Agreements Relating to the Granting of Permits for the Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific and Annual Ordinary Meeting of the Permanent Commission.
Upon casting votes, the first point of the preliminary question was dismissed.
The consultation having been rectified, upon the request of Senator CASTILLO, it was dismissed again with 90 votes against and 4 votes in favour.
Upon casting votes, the second point of the preliminary question was rejected.
The consultation having been rectified, upon the request of Senator CASTILLO, it was dismissed again with 89 votes against and 4 votes in favour.
Continuing with the debate on the main issue, Senator LLOSA and Deputy PINZAS refuted the opinions of Mr. Castillo and clarified the purpose of the Agreements.
Senator CASTILLO insisted on his statements and clarified some of the concepts [expressed] by Messrs. Llosa and Pinzás.
Deputy PINZAS confirmed his statements.
Deputy CASTRO BULNES formulated several suggestions related to the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone; he recalled his initiatives were intended to defend
Annex 79
481
482
Annex 79
-9-
//- the ichthyologic resources and [he] highlighted action by the present Regime on this issue; and he requested that his words be conveyed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in order for the suggestions he made to be studied.
Deputies GONZALES LOLI and CUCULIZA highlighted the significance of the Agreements and stated that they reaffirmed the principle of sovereignty over the 200 miles.
The point being considered [having been] sufficiently debated and put to vote, the substitute draft was approved.
It reads as follows:
“Sir:
THE CONGRESS, in exercise of the power that paragraph 21st of Article 123rd of the Political Constitution of the State vests in it, has resolved to approve the following agreements signed in the First Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific by the plenipotentiaries of Peru, Chile and Ecuador at Santiago on 18 August 1952;
DECLARATION ON THE MARITIME ZONE.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PERMANENT COMMISSION OF THE CONFERENCE ON THE EXPLOITATION AND CONSERVATION OF THE MARITIME RESOURCES OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC.
JOINT DECLARATION CONCERNING FISHING PROBLEMS IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC.
REGULATION FOR MARITIME HUNTING OPERATIONS IN THE WATERS OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC.
Likewise, it has resolved to approve the following Conventions signed in the Second Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific by the delegates of Peru, Chile and Ecuador at Lima on 4 Decem-
Annex 79
483
484
Annex 79
-10-
//-ber 1954:
COMPLEMENTARY CONVENTION TO THE DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGNTY ON THE TWO-HUNDRED-MILE MARITIME ZONE.
CONVENTION ON SYSTEM OF SANCTIONS.
AGREEMENT RELATING TO MEASURES OF SUPERVISION AND CONTROL IN THE MARITIME ZONES OF THE SIGNATORY COUNTRIES.
AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE GRANTING OF PERMITS FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF RESOURCES OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC.
CONVENTION ON THE ANNUAL ORDINARY MEETING OF THE PERMANENT COMMISSION OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC.
AGREEMENT RELATING TO A SPECIAL MARITIME FRONTIER ZONE.
We communicate, etc.”.
Senator CASTILLO requested that the reservations which he had formulated during the course of his intervention be recorded.
By proposal of Mr. Deputy PEÑA PRADO, an agreement was reached so as to authorize the Commission to approve the drafting of the previous project and to send the Draft Law to the Executive Branch, without waiting for the approval of the Records.
Annex 79
485
486
Annex 79
Annex 79
487
488
Annex 79
Annex 79
489
490
Annex 79
Annex 79
491
492
Annex 79
Annex 80
Official Letter No. 5-4-Y/68 of 11 July 1955 from the chargé d’affaires to Chile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Annex 8 to the Reply, citing Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru
493
494
Annex 80
embassy of peru
Santiago, 11 July 1955
No. 5-4-Y/68
---------------------------------
Ref: Protocol of Accession
to the Santiago Declaration
---------------------------------
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Lima.
--------
Minister,
With respect to the kind letter from your high Office No. 5-4-Y/53 of 16 June last, I am pleased to attach herewith a draft Protocol of Accession to the Declaration of Santiago on the Maritime Zone which has been prepared in discussions with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, which in turn has contacted the Embassy of Ecuador to that effect.
[…]
[signed]
Alberto Wagner de Reyna,
Chargé d’affaires a.i.
Annex 80
495
496
Annex 81
República Peruana, Diario de los Debates del Congreso Nacional,
Vol. I, 1955
497
498
Annex 81
Annex 81
499
500
Annex 81
Annex 81
501
502
Annex 81
Annex 81
503
504
Annex 81
Annex 82
Supreme Decree of 5 January 1956: Regulation for Fishing Permits to Foreign Vessels
Archives of the Congress of Peru
505
506
Annex 82
REGULATION FOR FISHING PERMITS TO FOREIGN VESSELS ― SUPREME DECREE The President of the Republic: CONSIDERING: That it is necessary to establish rules according to which permits may be granted to foreign-flagged fishing vessels desiring to carry out fishing activities in waters under national jurisdiction, for the purposes of protecting and preserving the use of living resources of the sea, essential to national life, in order that [these resources] are exploited only in a manner which does not cause detriment either to the country’s economy or to its food production; With the approving vote of the Council of Ministers; DECREES: The following is hereby approved: REGULATION FOR GRANTING FISHING PERMITS TO FOREIGN VESSELS IN JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF PERU ― I.―General Provisions Art. 1―The Government shall be able to grant permits to foreign-flagged fishing vessels to operate in Peruvian jurisdictional waters, under the conditions which are fixed in the present Regulation. Art. 2―This Regulation does not apply to foreign-flagged vessels [which are] hired to work for the use and benefit of national companies, with industrial plants established in the country and which deliver the fishing catch to such plants. Nor does it apply to vessels which are intending to only supply national consumption markets with fresh fish. In both cases, permits are subject to the provisions which have already been established.
Annex 82
507
508
Annex 82
II.―Application for Permit and Procedure Art. 5―In order to operate in Peruvian jurisdictional waters, foreign vessels must be equipped with a Register and a Fishing Permit. The Register shall be in force for one calendar year. The Permit shall be valid for one hundred (100) days from the date it was granted. Art. 11―Vessels which are registered and which desire, while in the high seas, to carry out fishing operations in waters under Peruvian jurisdiction, without having obtained the prior Fishing Permit, may communicate their desire by radio before entering into Peruvian waters, being then obliged to head immediately towards the nearest Major Peruvian port in order to obtain the permit in the manner established by the present Regulation. In such circumstances the relevant vessel shall be exempted from documents which the Codes and Regulations stipulate for foreign-flagged vessels entering into Peruvian ports. III.―Permit-holder’s Obligations and Rights Art. 12―Vessels authorized to fish in Peruvian jurisdictional waters shall carry out their activities within the legal boundaries, subject to the provisions in force and to the ones which might [subsequently] be enacted, being in any case obliged to communicate by some means the dates on which they enter [into] and exit from Peruvian waters. Annex 82
509
510
Annex 82
IV.―Infractions and Sanctions Art. 26―Foreign-flagged vessels which are found engaging in fishing activities within Peruvian jurisdictional waters, without the relevant permit, shall be subject to sanctions in accordance with the provisions in force. Art. 27―Offenders of requirements [set out] in the present Regulation shall be sanctioned in conformity with the provisions of the Regulation of Captaincies and Merchant Navy, the Penal Code and other provisions in force. MANUEL A. ODRIA. Luis E. Llosa G. P. Annex 82
511
512
Annex 83
Explanatory Report of 5 December 1963, signed by the Minister of Aeronautics
Archives of the Congress of Peru
513
514
Annex 83
EXPLANATORY REPORT
The momentum and development recently achieved – by Civil Aviation, has compelled the Executive Branch to study the legal problem which arises in relation to aerial navigation.
[On the basis of] [t]he outcome of the analysis of provisions of national [law], as well as [provisions] of the international treaties signed by Peru, the attached Bill has been prepared, which is sent to the Legislative Branch so that may be enacted and govern Civil Aeronautics in our country in the future.
The Bill, which is enclosed herewith, consists of XV Titles, which concern:
[...]
Annex 83
515
516
Annex 83
In Title I, related to air traffic, the principles of sovereignty concerning airspace and their relations with the principle of State sovereignty, are established as well as the Law applicable to the situations occurring, acts carried out, and crimes committed aboard aircraft, by virtue of the principle of sovereignty which is stated by this bill.
In accordance with doctrine and with the international principles established by the Chicago Convention, national rules which stem from the State’s right to regulate air traffic within the area limited by the aerial frontiers are enacted, and the rights of transit of aircraft overflying [the frontier] and rules relative to the establishment of customs for international air traffic are determined.
With regard to the Statute of the aircraft, the concept [of aircraft] is defined, determination of the nationality and registration [is set out], and the grounds regarding airworthiness are laid down, requiring the relevant certificate for aircraft to be used. Rules are adopted on seizure and other restrictive administrative measures on the right of property.
When referring to aircraft personnel, [the Bill] contains provisions relating to technical staff and licences, and regulatory provisions which must be enacted in this regard are established.
Finally, the authority and powers of the Commander of the aircraft, as an autonomous authority aboard and as representative of the exploiter or operator, are established.
Special care has been taken in establishing rules on the creation of the National Aeronautic Registry, to record the facts and legal acts which demonstrate or modify [ownership of] aeronautical property, and the acts of an administrative nature related to
Annex 83
517
518
Annex 83
certificates of airworthiness and licences for aeronautical technical staff, as well as their validation.
The bill, taking into account the important role played by land facilities in Civil Aeronautics, the interest of which arises out of its dual public and private nature, has placed special emphasis on distinguishing the different kinds of Aerodromes and Airports; and contains provisions with respect to aerial accidents, for the better accomplishment of the relevant investigations, [and] establishes obligations to carry out search and rescue, as well as the situations in which aircraft shall be [declared] lost or abandoned and the effects of the declaration.
The attached Bill also contains provisions on regular, irregular, international aerial transport and on the operations permitted, taking into consideration the existing International Conventions and Conferences on this matter; it analyzes principles on transportation services and special services; and, taking into account the interest which the State has in the development of civil and national aviation, the bill declares Operation Permits to be necessary and in the public interest.
In addition, legislation on contracts of air transport of passengers and carriage is [hereby] passed, and the draft also contains specific provisions on the sale, mortgage, transportation and lease [of aircraft], according to [Peru’s] own legislation and International Agreements signed by Peru.
The Bill has given special attention to establishing rules on civil responsibility in air transport, resulting from damage to passengers and crew, luggage and cargo, third parties on the surface in the event of collisions and, finally, it contains provisions which take into account the nature of existing civil and commercial relations.
For the rules on civil aeronautics to be effectively complied with, and for the State to safeguard rights resulting from air traffic, the highest [standards of] safety in civil aeronautics are provided for and offences and penalties are established.
Lima, -5 DEC. 1963
CARLOS GRANTHON C.
Lieutenant General FAP
[signed]
MINISTER OF AERONAUTICS
Annex 83
519
520
Annex 84
Geographic Advisor’s Office of the National Institute of Planning in the Office of the President, Atlas Histórico Geográfico de Paisajes Peruanos, 1963-1970
521
522
Annex 84
Annex 84
523
524
Annex 84
The coordinates relating to the points of that Frontier of the Western Section at which boundary markers have been placed are as follows:
No.
BOUNDARY MARKER
LATITUDE SOUTH
LONGITUDE W.
1
Capones
3º23'33''96 S
80º19'16'' W
2
Payana
3º23'33''96
80º19'16''
Annex 84
525
526
Annex 85
Ministry of Navy, Lista de Faros 1971 – Costa del Perú, 1971
Directorate of Hydrography and Navigation of the Navy of Peru
527
PERUVIAN REPUBLIC
MINISTRY OF NAVY
LIST OF LIGHTHOUSES
1971
COAST OF PERU
(Directorate’s coat of arms)
HIDRO – 303
528
Annex 85
[Translation]
Order No. and International No.
NAME AND LOCATION
POSITION
Type of Luminous Device - Light Characteristics and Power
Height in Metres Above Average Sea Level
Visibility in Nautical Miles
Type of Structure and height in Metres
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
PICTURE
[...]
91
La Concordia
1970
18º 20' 40"
70º 22' 30"
Acetylene
Green sparkle
Period: 12 sec.
Light: 3 sec.
Eclipse: 9 sec.
Ie = 11200 cd.
25.00
13.5
Coloured steel tower with white-red-white stripes.
Green alignment light.
Height: 22.00 m
Focal Height: 23.40 m
[Transcript]
No. de Orden y No. Internacional
NOMBRE Y SITUACION
POSICION
Tipo de Aparato Luminoso Característica Luminosa y Potencia
Altura en Metros Sobre el Nivel Medio del Mar
Visibilidad en Millas Náuticas
Clase de estructura y su altura en Metros
DATOS COMPLEMENTARIOS
FOTOGRAFIA
[...]
91
La Concordia
1970
18º 20' 40"
70º 22' 30"
Acetileno
Destello verde
Período: 12 segs.
Luz: 3 segs.
Eclipse: 9 segs.
Ie = 11200 cd.
25.00
13.5
Torre metálica de color, franjas blanco – rojo – blanco.
Luz de enfilación verde.
Altura: 22.00
Altura Focal: 23.40
Annex 85
529
530
Annex 86
Official Declaration by the President of Chile of 23 June 1947 as published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Instrumentos Nacionales e Internacionales sobre Derecho del Mar, 1971
531
532
Annex 86
CHILE ESTABLISHES THE 200 MILES
OFFICIAL DECLARATION
23 June 1947
[Text of Chile’s 1947 Proclamation is reproduced.]
Annex 86
533
534
Annex 86
Annex 87
Memorandum of 18 November 1976 of the Embassy of Peru in Chile
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Historia de las Negociaciones Chileno-Bolivianas: 1975-1978, 1978
535
536
Annex 87
EMBASSY OF PERU
MEMORANDUM
SUMMARY OF THE PERUVIAN PROPOSAL FORMULATED TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHILE, VICE-ADMIRAL PATRICIO CARVAJAL PRADO, BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF PERU, AMBASSADOR LUIS MARCHAND STENS, ON THURSDAY 18 NOVEMBER AT 15.30.
1.- Cession by Chile to Bolivia of a sovereign corridor to the North of the province of Arica, parallel to the Concordia Line, which starts at the Bolivia-Chile frontier and extends until it abuts the road from Arica to Tacna.
2.- Establishment in the province of Arica, after the corridor, of a territorial area under shared sovereignty of the three States, Bolivia, Chile and Peru, located to the south of the Peru-Chile frontier, between the Concordia Line, the Tacna-Arica road, the northern area of the city of Arica and the coast of the Pacific Ocean. (This area, which takes the form of a trapezium, covers approximately 66km2, 50km2 of which are included in the current Chile-Bolivia proposal.)
3.- Concession to Bolivia of the right to build a port under its exclusive sovereignty on the coast of the trapezium.
4.- Exclusive sovereignty of Bolivia over the sea adjacent to the coast of the territory under shared sovereignty.
5.- Constitution of a tri-national port administration in the port of Arica.
6.- Establishment by the three countries of a centre for economic development in the zone under shared sovereignty, to which other States and multinational financing organizations could make financial contributions.
Annex 87
537
538
Annex 87
Annex 88
Directorate of Hydrography and Navigation of the Navy, Lista de Faros y Señales Náuticas – Costa del Perú, 5th edn, 1976
Directorate of Hydrography and Navigation of the Navy of Peru
539
REPUBLIC OF PERU
MINISTRY OF NAVY
(Directorate’s coat of arms)
DIRECTORATE OF HYDROGRAPHY AND
NAVIGATION OF THE NAVY
LIST OF LIGHTHOUSES
AND
NAUTICAL SIGNALS
COAST OF PERU
SOUTH AMERICA – PACIFIC OCEAN
5th EDITION 1976
540
Annex 88
[Transcript]
No. DE ORDEN No. INTERNACIONAL
LUGAR
NOMBRE
AÑO DE INSTALACION
AÑO ULTIMA MODIFICACION
POSICION:
LATITUD SUR (S)
LONGITUD OESTE (W)
TIPO DE APARATO LUMINOSO
POTENCIA
LUZ – PERIODO CARACTERISTICAS
ALTURA FOCAL EN METROS S.N.M.M.
ALCANCE (MILLAS) LUMINOSO GEOGRAFICO
CLASE DE TORRE
ALTURA EN METROS
DATOS COMPLEMENTARIOS
[...]
320
G. 1996
La Concordia
1970
1976
18 20 47
70 22 28
Gas acetileno
11,200 cd.
Dest. Verde 12s.
Luz 3s.
Eclipse 9s.
23.50
13.50
Torre de concreto franjas horizontales azul y blanco
21
Luz de enfilación sector de iluminación 7º en dirección 270º Verdadero 266º.5 273º.5
[Translation]
ORDER No. AND INTERNATIONAL No.
PLACE
NAME
YEAR OF INSTALLATION
YEAR OF LAST MODIFICATION
POSITION:
LATITUDE SOUTH (S)
LONGITUDE WEST (W)
TYPE OF LUMINOUS DEVICE - LIGHT POWER – PERIOD - CHARACTERISTICS
FOCAL HEIGHT IN METRES ABOVE AVERAGE SEA LEVEL
LUMINANCE/
GEOGRAPHIC RANGE (MILES)
TYPE OF STRUCTURE OF TOWER AND
HEIGHT IN METRES
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
[...]
320
G. 1996
La Concordia
1970
1976
18 20 47
70 22 28
Acetylene gas
11,200 cd.
Green Sparkle 12s.
Light 3s.
Eclipse 9s.
23.50
13.50
Concrete tower in blue and white horizontal stripes
21
Alignment light, lightning sector 7º in direction 270º True 266º.5 273º.5
Annex 88
541
542
Annex 89
Supreme Decree No. 015-86-EM/VME of 21 August 1986 granting Block S-2 of the Titicaca Basin to Petroperu S.A.
El Peruano, 10 September 1986
543
544
Annex 89
"PETROPERU" S.A. IS GRANTED, FOR ITS OWN OPERATIONS, BLOCK S-2 OF 896,647.00 HA. LOCATED IN THE TITICACA BASIN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUNO
supreme decree no. 015-86-em/vme of 21 august 1986
[...]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
[...]
DECREES:
1. Approval of the creation of Block S-2, which is delimitated as appears in the annexed map, which forms an integral part of this Supreme Decree.
[…]
Annex 89
545
546
Annex 89
Annex 90
Supreme Decree No. 002-87-MA of 11 June 1987 approving the Regulation of Captaincies and Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities
El Peruano, 11 June 1987
547
548
Annex 90
Annex 90
549
550
Annex 90
Annex 90
551
552
Annex 90
Annex 90
553
SECTION II ON THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF CAPTAINCIES AND COASTGUARD A-010201 The functions of the Directorate-General are as follows: 1) To issue broad policies for the functioning of the Organization of Captaincies and Coastguard, with the purpose of obtaining optimum results in the performance of the Objectives. 2) To exercise the Direction, surveillance and control of the organization of Captaincies and Coastguard. 3) To require compliance with the present Regulation and with all the provisions contained therein, [with] international agreements and treaties ratified by the government and with legislation concerning the scope of its jurisdiction, and to issue supplementary rules which may be required. […]6) To represent the nation in international events and conferences related to maritime activities and recommend to the Government the appointment of experts who must attend. 7) To carry out maritime, fluvial and lacustrine policing in ports, in the coast of the maritime dominion up to 200 miles and in rivers and navigable lakes.8) To exercise control of aquatic traffic, access, stay and exit of vessels from ports, anchorages and the waters of national sovereignty and jurisdiction. To control the system of information on position and security of vessels in the aquatic environment. 9) To monitor the safety of human life at sea, in rivers and in navigable lakes.[…]11) To exercise control in order to prevent and mitigate the effects of contamination of the sea, rivers, navigable lakes, and, in general, anything which causes ecological damage. […]
554
Annex 90
16) To determine the staffing of ships and vessels of the Merchant Navy, Fishing and other aquatic activities. […]18) To carry out the control of Pilotage and Practical Pilotage services which are carried out in the national territory. […]20) To control the allocation of islands and areas of sea within the maritime dominion, as well as areas in rivers and navigable lakes. To authorize the installation and building of temporary or permanent works in these areas subject to the State’s interests. […]22) To supervise and oversee quays, vessels, and personnel of the Merchant Navy, fishing, sports navigation and national maritime workers. 23) To require compliance with provisions which are issued with regard to fishing, guano birds and other natural resources of the aquatic field. […]26) To authorize and control rescue and recovery of vessels and sunken remains in waters of the maritime dominion, rivers and navigable lakes. […]28) To authorize and supervise activities of scientific research which are carried out by national and foreign vessels in the aquatic scope of jurisdiction. […]30) Review of decisions on disasters and accidents. 31) To grant Navigation Permits to foreign vessels, merchant vessels hired by national shipping companies, fishing vessels and to other [vessels] which are to operate in national waters. 32) To initiate, exceptionally and when the circumstances so require, proceedings for infringement of the present regulation and legal
Annex 90
555
provisions in force, within the scope of its competence. SECTION III ON THE FUNCTIONS OF MARITIME, FLUVIAL AND LACUSTRINE DISTRICTS A-010301The functions of the Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Districts are as follows: 1) To carry out Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Policing in the area of their jurisdiction. 2) To carry out patrols for the purposes of control, surveillance, security and protection in the area of their jurisdiction. 3) To plan, lead and control operational and administrative issues within the area of their jurisdiction.4) To act as a sub-centre for coordination in search and rescue operations. 5) To perform the tasks of District Coordinators of the National Plan of Contingency in order to prevent, contain and mitigate the effects of pollution at sea, rivers and lakes by hydrocarbons and other dangerous substances.[…]SECTION II JURISDICTION OF THE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL OF CAPTAINCIES AND COASTGUARD A-020201 For the purposes of this Regulation, [the following] fall under the jurisdiction of the Directorate-General: a) The waters of the maritime dominion up to 200 nautical miles, and navigable rivers and lakes of the Republic. b) The coasts up to the line of the highest swell of the sea and the banks up to the line of the ordinary highest swell on the shores of navigable rivers and lakes.
556
Annex 90
c) The islands within: the maritime dominion, the rivers and the Titicaca lake. d) The vessels which are in national waters and those flying the Peruvian flag in the high seas, in ports and in waters under the dominion of other countries. e) Maritime, fluvial and lacustrine docks and terminals, public and private, which are suitable for the operation of vessels. f) Naval devices and installations within the maritime, fluvial and lacustrine sphere. g) Companies and/or personnel whose activities are carried out in or have a bearing upon the maritime, fluvial or lacustrine sphere. h) The maritime, fluvial and lacustrine frontiers. A-020202 Likewise, Maritime Districts, Captaincies and Coastguard Units fall under the jurisdiction of the Directorate-General. SECTION III JURISDICTION OF THE MARITIME, FLUVIAL AND LACUSTRINE DISTRICTS A-020301The Maritime Districts coming under the jurisdiction of the Directorate-General are the following: a) Maritime District 11 1. Jurisdiction: from the maritime frontier with Ecuador, to the parallel that passes through the departmental limit between Piura and Lambayeque (Parallel 06 21' South). […] b) Maritime District 12 1. Jurisdiction: from the departmental limit between Piura and Lambayeque (Parallel 06 21' South), to the departmental limit between La Libertad and Ancash (Parallel 08 58' South). […]
Annex 90
557
c) Maritime District 21 1. Jurisdiction: from the departmental limit between La Libertad and Ancash (Parallel 08 58' South) to the departmental limit between Ancash and Lima (Parallel 10 36' South). […] d) Maritime District 22 1. Jurisdiction: from the departmental limit between Ancash and Lima (Parallel 10 36' South), to the departmental limit between Lima and Ica (Parallel 13 18' South). […] e) Maritime District 23 1. Jurisdiction: from the departmental limit between Lima and Ica (Parallel 13 18' South) to the provincial limit between Caraveli and Camaná (Parallel 16 25' South). […] f) Maritime District 31 1. Jurisdiction: from the provincial limit between Caraveli and Camaná (Parallel 16 25' South) to the frontier boundary between Peru and Chile. […]SECTION III ON THE SYSTEM OF INFORMATION ON POSITION AND SECURITY OF VESSELS IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT A-040301All vessels of national flag, of any kind, larger than 350 GRT and foreign vessels of any kind and tonnage which sail in Waters of the Maritime Dominion, requesting entry to port or set sail from them, shall provide the information required by the system, which shall be duly regulated.
558
Annex 90
Annex 91
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, El Perú en Gráficos
El Comercio, 16 October 1988
559
560
Annex 91
PERU IN GRAPHICS
PERU
POLITICAL
MAP
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Annex 91
561
562
Annex 91
PERU – BOLIVIA FRONTIER
BOUNDARIES WITH BOLIVIA
The Boundaries between Peru and Bolivia were fixed by several Treaties. Currently the frontier line is divided into two sectors: North and South. Each sector, in turn, is divided into Sections. The Northern Sector consists of five sections and the southern sector of four. The First Section of the Northern Sector commences at the confluence of the Suches river and the Pachasili stream, the frontier line ending at the Fifth Section; from the ravine of the Heat river and the Madre de Dios up to the confluence of the Acre river with the Yaverija ravine, [which is] adjacent to Brazil. The Southern Sector commences (First Section) from the confluence of the Suches river with the Pachasili stream, up to Jalaropampa, where a boundary marker which is common to Bolivia, Peru and Chile is placed, and where the Fourth Section of the Southern Sector ends. The boundaries with Bolivia were Fixed by, among others, the Osma – Villazón Treaty (1902); the 1909 Treaty of Rectification of Frontiers; the 1911 Protocols; and the 1925 Protocol for study and Demarcation, as well as the 1932 Protocol Ratifying Demarcation, known as Concha – Gutiérrez.
Annex 91
563
564
Annex 91
PERU – BRAZIL FRONTIER
BOUNDARIES WITH BRAZIL
The boundary with Brazil commences at the Confluence of Yavarí with the Amazonas, in front of the Brazilian town of Tabatinga.
In that place a boundary marker was placed in 1886, in which the [following] position was recorded: Latitude 4º 12' 59"36 south; Longitude 69º 54' 24"36 [west]. Thereafter, the international boundary continues towards the south along the Yavarí river, the alveus of which was fixed as dividing line by a Mixed Commission in 1874, in accordance with the 1851 Fluvial Convention. The delimitation continued (1909 Treaty) from the part which runs from the source of the Yavarí up to the frontier with Bolivia (confluence of the Yaverija with the Acre), the said line being demarcated between 1914 and 1927 by a Mixed Commission.
Annex 91
565
PERU – COLOMBIA FRONTIER
BOUNDARIES WITH COLOMBIA
The boundaries with Colombia were fixed by the Salomón – Lozano Treaty, signed on 24 March 1922. The frontier line commences at the meridian [sic] of the mouth of the Cuhimbé river in Putumayo, cuts across the San Miguel or Sucumbios river, goes up through the same meridian [sic] along the mouth of the Cuhimbé and, thereafter, continues along the Putumayo river until reaching the confluence of the Yaguas, from this point the boundary takes the form of a straight line up to where the Amazonas river merges with the Atacuari. And from this point the boundary continues through the thalweg (the deepest part) of the Amazonas river up to the boundary point of Peru and Brazil.
566
Annex 91
PERU – CHILE FRONTIER
BOUNDARIES WITH CHILE
The current boundaries with Chile were fixed by the 1929 Treaty of Lima. By the end of that same year, and in 1930, the boundary markers which currently exist were placed. Boundary marker No. 1 is placed very close to the sea; from there the boundary line continues parallel to the Arica – La Paz railway, and moves away from the Railway in the vicinity of the sulphate mines, to once again approach the railway line passing through the middle of Laguna Blanca. The boundary ends at Jalaropampa, where Boundary Marker No. 80 is erected and where the territories of Peru, Chile, and Bolivia meet.
Annex 91
567
PERU – ECUADOR FRONTIER
BOUNDARIES WITH ECUADOR
The boundaries with Ecuador were fixed by the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro, signed on 29 January 1942 and approved by the Congresses of the two countries on 26 February 1942, the relevant exchange of ratifications taking place at the city of Petrópolis (Brazil, 31 March 1942). The Protocol of Rio (in which the United States of America, Brazil, Chile and Argentina participated as Guarantors) divides the frontier into two Sectors. In the Western Sector, the boundaries start at the Mouth of the Capones river, in the Pacific Ocean. In the Eastern Sector, the frontier continues from the ravine of San Francisco up to the Güepí river and, through [the river], up to its outfall into the Putumayo, and along the Putumayo to the boundary of Ecuador and Colombia.
During the subsequent placement of boundary markers by a Mixed Commission, discrepancies arose in the two sectors of the line, differences which were resolved through the mediation of Brazil by means of a formula known as Formula Aranha (17 May 1944, which settled discrepancies in the Western Sector) and through an arbitral award (the decision of Braz Dias de Aguiar, July 1945) which resolved the discrepancies in the Eastern Sector. After this decision, the Mixed Commission continued placing boundary markers, but Ecuador decided to withdraw from this Commission, and subsequently denouncing the Protocol of Rio de Janeiro as null. The Protocol of Rio is a perfect Treaty and cannot be unilaterally declared void, since it was ratified by the countries guarantors of the Protocol in a note signed by these countries on 28 October 1960.
568
Annex 91
Annex 92
Press Release No. 29-90 of 24 April 1990 issued by the Directorate of Information of the Navy
Directorate of Information of the Peruvian Navy
569
570
Annex 92
[Transcript]
Chilenos pescaban en aguas peruanas
La Marina de Guerra del Perú informó que existen pruebas irrefutables de que tres pesqueras chilenas se encontraban pescando en aguas peruanas cuando fueron descubiertas por el guardacostas BAP “Río Ocoña”, el 20 de abril.
Así lo precisó la Dirección de Información de la Marina, en la nota informativa que a continuación publicamos:
INFORMACION DE PRENSA No. 29-90 EN TORNO A LA CAPTURA DE BOLICHERAS CHILENAS
El día viernes 20 de abril, la Patrullera Guardacostas B.A.P. “Río Ocoña” en cumplimiento de su misión de patrullaje y resguardo de rutina de la soberanía marítima en el litoral sur, en latitud 18° 20' y longitud 70° 22', detectó a tres embarcaciones pesqueras chilenas, las mismas que se encontraban efectuando actividades de pesca en aguas peruanas, sin el permiso correspondiente.
Al advertir la presencia de la patrullera “Río Ocoña” dos de las naves cruzaron la frontera marítima hacia aguas chilenas, y una tercera “Bermudas II” en plena faena de pesca fue conminada a detenerse e identificarse, advertencia que no fue observada. De inmediato el B.A.P “Río Ocoña” de acuerdo a los procedimientos de rutina de estos casos efectuó disparos de advertencia al aire y al agua con un fusil ligero. La embarcación chilena, ante esta situación huyó hacia sus aguas confirmando en los hechos la existencia de pruebas irrefutables de que las naves mencionadas se encontraban pescando en aguas peruanas.
Este incidente se encuentra ventilándose como corresponde entre las autoridades de las capitanías del puerto de Ilo y Arica.
Lima, 24 de abril 1990
DIRECCION DE INFORMACION DE LA MARINA
Annex 92
571
[Translation]
Chileans fished in Peruvian waters
The Navy of Peru reported that irrefutable evidence exists that three Chilean fishing vessels were fishing in Peruvian waters when they were found by coastguard B.A.P. “Río Ocoña” on 20 April.
It was so explained by the Directorate of Information of the Navy in the press release we publish below:
PRESS RELEASE No. 29-90 IN RELATION TO THE CAPTURE OF CHILEAN PURSE-NET FISHING BOATS
On Friday 20 April, Coastguard Patrol Boat B.A.P. “Río Ocoña”, in executing its mission of patrol and routine surveillance of the maritime sovereignty in the southern coast, detected, at latitude 18º 20' and longitude 70º 22', three Chilean fishing vessels, which were carrying out fishing activities in Peruvian waters without the necessary licence.
Upon becoming aware of the presence of patrol boat “Río Ocoña”, two of the vessels crossed the maritime frontier towards Chilean waters, and a third one, “Bermudas II”, in the midst of carrying out fishing activities, was ordered to stop and identify itself, a warning which was not needed. “Río Ocoña”, in accordance with routine procedure in such circumstances, fired warning shots into the air and the water with a light rifle. Confronted with this situation, the Chilean vessel escaped, heading towards its waters, confirming, as a matter of fact, that there is irrefutable evidence that the abovementioned vessels were fishing in Peruvian waters.
This incident is being duly addressed by the authorities of the captaincies of the port of Ilo and Arica.
Lima, 24 April 1990
DIRECTORATE OF INFORMATION OF THE NAVY
572
Annex 92
Annex 93
Directorial Resolution No. 347-91-DC/MGP of 20 December 1991 of the Directorate-General of Captaincies and Coastguard
El Peruano, 29 December 1991
573
574
Annex 93
Annex 93
575
576
Annex 93
Annex 93
577
578
Annex 93
Annex 93
579
[...]
Article 3.- Infractions of the present provision on Maritime Traffic Information shall be sanctioned in accordance with Article A-040308 of the Regulation of Captaincies and Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities, RECAAM-40001.
[...]
ANNEX (1)
SYSTEM OF INFORMATION ON POSITION AND SECURITY IN THE MARITIME DOMINION OF PERU
STRUCTURE OF INFORMATION MESSAGES
MESSAGE IDENTIFICATION:
SHIPREP (System Designation)
TYPE OF INFORMATIVE REPORT
a. A set of two letters
“EPW” (Notification of entry into jurisdictional waters)
“PR (Notification of position)
“FR” (Final notification)
“DPW” (Notification of exit from jurisdictional waters)
[...]
4th. CASE EXIT FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL WATERS (DPW) – Information which the vessel must transmit upon exiting jurisdictional waters.
.......... SHIPREP
A....... (DPW)
B....... Name of the vessel, international and national indication
C.......Date and local time (of exit from juridictional waters)
E........Position (Coordinates of exit from jurisdictional waters)
580
Annex 93
Annex 94
Directorial Resolution No. 0313-94/DCG of 23 September 1994 of the Directorate-General of Captaincies and Coastguard
El Peruano, 1 October 1994
581
582
Annex 94
Annex 94
583
584
Annex 94
Annex 94
585
[Transcript]
[Resolución Directoral N° 0313-94/DCG]
ANEXO (1)
SISTEMA DE INFORMACION DE POSICION Y
SEGURIDAD EN EL DOMINIO MARITIMO
DEL PERU
[…]
Art 4to. Las infracciones a la presente disposición de información de Tráfico Marítimo serán sancionadas de acuerdo a la Tabla de Multas de Capitanías.
[…]
ANEXO (4)
SISTEMA DE INFORMACION DE POSICION Y SEGURIDAD EN EL DOMINIO MARITIMO DEL PERU
PROCEDIMIENTO ESPECIFICO DE INFORMACION PARA NAVES CIENTIFICAS O PESQUERAS MAYORES DE 350 TRB DE BANDERA NACIONAL, Y DE CUALQUIER TIPO, CAPACIDAD O TONELAJE DE BANDERA EXTRANJERA OPERANDO EN EL DOMINIO MARITIMO DEL PERU.
1er. CASO.- INFORMACION DE INGRESO AL DOMINIO MARITIMO (EPW).-Información que debe transmitir la nave al momento de ingresar al Dominio Marítimo del Perú:
....... SHIPREP (Identificación del Sistema)
A .... EPW
B .... Nombre de la nave, distintivo de llamada y nacionalidad
C .... Fecha y hora (de ingreso al Dominio Marítimo)
D .... Puerto de Procedencia
E .... Coordenadas (al ingreso al Dominio Marítimo)
F...... Rumbo verdadero
G .... Velocidad
H .... Puerto de Destino
I ...... ETA
J ..... Agencia representante (Nombre)
[…]
586
Annex 94
3er. CASO.- SALIDA DEL DOMINIO MARITIMO (DPW). Información que debe transmitir la nave al momento de salir del Dominio Marítimo.
........ SHIPREP
A ..... DPW
B ..... Nombre de la nave, indicativo internacional y nacional
C ..... Fecha y hora local (de salida del Dominio Marítimo)
E ...... Posición (Coordenadas de salida del Dominio Marítimo)
H ..... Puerto de Destino
APENDICE I AL ANEXO (4)
SISTEMA DE INFORMACION DE POSICION Y SEGURIDAD EN EL DOMINIO MARITIMO DEL PERU
MODELOS DE MENSAJES DE POSICION PARA BUQUES CIENTIFICOS O PESQUEROS
1er. CASO.- SHIPREP/EPW/ATLAS/LQVJ/AR/191300/BUENOS AIRES/1820.8S/07620W/330/20/CALLAO/301100/OMEGA/.
[…]
3er. CASO.- SHIPREP/DPW/SABOCAL/OABP/301100/0324S/08130W/ GUAYAQUIL/.
Annex 94
587
[Translation]
ANNEX (1)
SYSTEM OF INFORMATION ON POSITION AND SECURITY IN THE MARITIME DOMINION OF PERU
[…]
Art. 4 Infractions of the present provision on Maritime Traffic information shall be sanctioned in accordance with the Table of Fines of Captaincies.
[…]
ANNEX (4)
SYSTEM OF INFORMATION ON POSITION AND SECURITY IN THE
MARITIME DOMINION OF PERU
SPECIFIC PROCEDURE OF INFORMATION FOR SCIENTIFIC OR FISHING NATIONAL-FLAGGED VESSELS LARGER THAN 350 GRT AND FOREIGN-FLAGGED [VESSELS] OF ANY TYPE, CAPACITY OR TONNAGE OPERATING IN THE MARITIME DOMINION.
1st. CASE.-
INFORMATION FOR ENTERING THE MARITIME DOMINION (EPW) – Information that must be transmitted by the vessel at the time of entry into the Maritime Dominion of Peru:
……....... SHIPREP (Identification of the System)
A……..... EPW
B……..... Name of the vessel, call signal and nationality
C……..... Date and time (of entry into the Maritime Dominion)
D……..... Port of Origin
E……..... Coordinates (of entry into the Maritime Dominion)
F……..... True bearing
G……..... Speed
H……..... Destination Port
I……...... ETA
J……...... Representing agency (Name)
[…]
588
Annex 94
3rd. CASE.-
EXIT FROM THE MARITIME DOMINION
(DPW) – Information that the vessel must transmit at the moment of exit from the Maritime Dominion:
……....... SHIPREP (Identification of the System)
A……..... DPW
B……..... Name of the vessel, call signal and nationality
C……..... Date and time (of exit from into the Maritime Dominion)
E……..... Coordinates (upon exit from the Maritime Dominion)
H……..... Destination Port
APPENDIX I TO ANNEX (4)
MODEL POSITIONING REPORT FOR RESEARCH AND FISHING
VESSELS
1st. CASE.-
SHIPREP/EPW/ATLAS/LQVJ/AR/191300/BUENOS AIRES/
1820.8S/07620W/330/20/CALLAO/301100/OMEGA/.
[…]
3rd. CASE.-
SHIPREP/DPW/SABOCAL/OABP/301100/0324S/08130W/GUAYAQUIL/.
[…]
Annex 94
589
590
Annex 95
Law No. 26620 of 30 May 1996 on Control and Surveillance of Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities
Annex 20 to the Memorial, citing Official Journal ‘El Peruano’, 9 June 1996, Congress of the Republic of Peru, Digital Archive of Legislation in Peru <http://www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/Imagenes/Leyes/26620.pdf&gt;
591
Ley de Control y Vigilancia de las actividades marítimas, fluviales y lacustresLey N° 26620EL PRESIDENTE DE LA REPUBLICA POR CUANTO: El Congreso de la República ha dado la Ley siguiente:EL CONGRESO DE LA REPUBLICA;Ha dado la ley siguiente:LEY DE CONTROL Y VIGILANCIA DE LAS ACTIVIDADES MARITIMAS, FLUVIALES Y LACUSTRESArtículo 1o.- La presente Ley regula los aspectos de control y vigilancia a cargo de la Autoridad Marítima, respecto de las actividades que se desarrollan en los ámbitos marítimo, fluvial y lacustre del territorio de la República.Artículo 2o.- El ámbito de aplicación de la presente Ley es:a) El mar adyacente a sus costas, así como su lecho, hasta la distancia de 200 millas marinas, conforme lo establece la Constitución Política del Perú, los ríos y lagos navegables.b) Las islas, situadas en el mar hasta las 200 millas, en los ríos y lagos navegables.c) Los terrenos ribereños en la costa, hasta los 50 metros, medidos a partir de la mas alta marea del mar, y las riberas, en las márgenes de los ríos y lagos navegables, hasta la más alta crecida ordinaria.d) Todos los buques que se encuentren en aguas jurisdiccionales y los buques de bandera nacional cuando se encuentren en alta mar o en aguas de otros países.e) Los artefactos navales e instalaciones situadas en las zonas establecidas en los incisos a), b) y c) del presente artículo.f) Las personas naturales y jurídicas, cuyas actividades se desarrollen en los ámbitos marítimo, fluvial y lacustre, sin perjuicio de las atribuciones que correspondan por ley a otros sectores de la administración pública.Artículo 3o.- Corresponde a la Autoridad Marítima aplicar y hacer cumplir la presente Ley, sus normas reglamentarias, las regulaciones de los sectores competentes y los Convenios y otros Instrumentos Internacionales ratificados por el Estado Peruano referidos al ámbito de la presente ley.Artículo 4o.- La Autoridad Marítima es ejercida por el Director General de Capitanías y Guardacostas.Artículo 5o.- Para el ejercicio de sus funciones de Autoridad Marítima con alcance a nivel nacional, el Director General de Capitanías y Guardacostas, cuenta con las Capitanías de Puerto y las Unidades Guardacostas.Artículo 6o.- Son funciones de la Autoridad Marítima:a) Exigir el cumplimiento de la presente ley y sus normas reglamentarias.b) Velar por la seguridad de la vida humana en el mar, ríos y lagos navegables.c) Controlar el tráfico acuático, incluido el acceso, la permanencia y la salida de los buques de los puertos, fondeaderos y aguas de soberanía y jurisdicción nacionales.d) Ejercer control y vigilancia para prevenir y combatir los efectos de la contaminación del mar, ríos y lagos navegables, y en general todo aquello que ocasione daño ecológico en el ámbito de su competencia con sujeción a las normas nacionales y convenios internacionales sobre la materia, sin perjuicio de las funciones que les corresponden ejercer a otros sectores de la Administración Pública, de conformidad con la legislación vigente sobre la materia.e) Administrar y operar las estaciones de radio costeras, con sujeción a la normativa vigente sobre la materia.
592
Annex 95
Article 2.- The scope of application of the present Law is:
a) The sea adjacent to its coasts and its seabed up to a distance of 200 nautical miles, as established by the Political Constitution of Peru, the rivers and the navigable lakes.
b) The islands located at sea up to the 200 miles, in the rivers and in the navigable lakes.
c) Riparian lands on the coast up to 50 metres measured from high tide of the sea, and the banks at the margin of rivers and navigable lakes, up to the ordinary highest swell.
d) All the vessels which are in jurisdictional waters and the vessels flying the national flag when they are in the high seas or in waters of other countries.
e) Naval devices and installations located in the zones established in paragraphs a), b) and c) of this article.
[…]
Annex 95
593
f) Otorgar en los casos que el reglamento establezca permisos de navegación a los buques de bandera extranjera para operar en aguas jurisdiccionales.g) Las demás que se establezcan en el Reglamento de la presente ley.Artículo 7o.- Las contravenciones a la presente Ley o su Reglamento y demás normas vigentes en materia marítima, fluvial o lacustre serán objeto, entre otras sanciones, a las multas que se impongan de conformidad con la Tabla de Multas vigente, sin perjuicio de las aplicables por otros sectores de la Administración Pública.Artículo 8o.- Los procedimientos administrativos que se sigan ante la Autoridad Marítima constarán en el correspondiente Texto Unico de Procedimientos Administrativos, con indicación del monto de los derechos respectivos, el mismo que será aprobado por Decreto Supremo.PRIMERA DISPOSICION TRANSITORIA.- La presente Ley será reglamentada dentro de un plazo de 180 días calendarios, contados a partir del día siguiente de su publicación en el Diario Oficial "El Peruano".El texto del reglamento deberá ser coordinado con los sectores competentes y el Decreto Supremo por el que se apruebe deberá contar con el voto aprobatorio del Consejo de Ministros y será refrendado por el Ministro de Defensa.SEGUNDA DISPOSICION TRANSITORIA.- El Reglamento de Capitanías y de las Actividades Marítimas, Fluviales y Lacustres, aprobado por Decreto Supremo No 002-87/MA del 09 de Abril 1987, continuará vigente, en cuanto no se oponga a la presente Ley, hasta la expedición del Reglamento a que se refiere la Primera Disposición Transitoria de la presente Ley.Comuníquese al señor Presidente de la República para su promulgación.En Lima, a los treinta días del mes de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y seis.MARTHA CHAVEZ COSSIO DE OCAMPOPresidenta del Congreso de la RepúblicaVICTOR JOY WAY ROJASPrimer Vicepresidente del Congreso de la RepúblicaAL SEÑOR PRESIDENTE CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA REPUBLICAPOR TANTO:Mando se publique y cumpla.Dado en la Casa de Gobierno, en Lima, a los siete días del mes de junio de mil novecientos noventa y seis.ALBERTO FUJIMORI FUJIMORIPresidente Constitucional de la RepúblicaALBERTO PANDOLFI ARBULUPresidente del Consejo de MinistrosTOMAS CASTILLO MEZAMinistro de Defensa
594
Annex 95
Annex 96
Directorial Resolution No. 0403-2000/DCG of 7 September 2000 of the Directorate-General of Captaincies and Coastguard
Archives of the Ministry of Transports and Telecommunications of Chile
595
596
Annex 96
DIRECTORIAL RESOLUTION
Res __0403-2000/DCG_____
Pages 0495____________
Date __07 September 2000____
Directorial Resolution
[…]
WHEREAS:
Article 1 of Law No. 26620, Law on Control and Surveillance of Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities, provides that this Law governs the control and surveillance tasks entrusted to the Maritime Authority, with respect to activities carried out in the maritime, fluvial and lacustrine spheres of the territory of the Republic, and in its article 2, paragraph (e) deems naval devices and aquatic installations [within] its scope of application;
Telefónica Sam del Perú S.A.C. has complied with the requirements established in procedure H-01 of part C of the Unified Text of Administrative Procedure of the War Navy of Peru (TUPAM-15001), approved by Supreme Decree No. 005 DE/MGP dated 10 March 2000;
In accordance with the advice of the Director of Environment;
IT IS RESOLVED:
1.- To approve the preliminary proposal submitted by Telefónica Sam del Perú S.A.C. for the installation of TWO (02) submarine optical fibre cables along the entire Peruvian Coast and in an area of Arica beach, Lurin district, province and department of Lima.
2.- The aquatic area which is to be occupied by the installation of submarine cables as set out in the preliminary proposal shall be delimited by the following geographic coordinates:
SEGMENT N:
START
Latitude
03º23'00.0''
South
Longitude
88º18'39.6''
West
END
Latitude
12º18'03.8''
South
Longitude
7[8]º51'14.2''
West
SEGMENT O:
START
Latitude
12º18'04.0''
South
Longitude
7[8]º51'14.0''
West
END
Latitude
18º21'00.0''
South
Longitude
73º35'58.0''
West
Annex 96
597
598
Annex 96
[…]
5.- This authorization to request a concession [for] use of an aquatic area does not amount to approval of the grant of authorization of any concession or installation of submarine cables, which must be accorded through Directorial Resolution, pursuant to the legal provisions in force, the commencement of the installation being forbidden until the latter is issued.
6.- The rights conferred by this authorization are not transferable.
Be it registered and published as Public Official Document (D.O.P.)
[signed]
Rear Admiral
Director General of Captaincies and Coastguard
Humberto LEON RABINES Gironda
Annex 96
599
600
Annex 97
Law No. 27415 of 25 January 2001: Territorial Demarcation of the Province of Tacna, Department of Tacna
El Peruano, 3 February 2001
601
602
Annex 97
LAW No. 27415
[…]
LAW OF TERRITORIAL DEMARCATION OF THE PROVINCE OF TACNA, DEPARTMENT OF TACNA
[…]
Annex 97
603
604
Annex 97
FINAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
First.- The limits of the province of Tacna and the districts: Alto de la Alianza, Ciudad Nueva, Calana, Inclán, Pachía, Palca, Pocollay, Sama, Tacna, Coronel Gregorio Albarracín Lanchipa, are drawn on the basis of official cartography prepared and published by the National Geographic Institute (IGN) at a 1/100,000 scale, according to sheet numbers, names, printing year and system of coordinates: 37 u (La Yarada), 37 v (Tacna), 37 x (Huaylillas), 36 u (Locumba), 36 v (Pachía), 36 x (Palca), 35 v (Tarata), 35 x (Mauri River), 35 y (Tayaje), all the sheets were printed in 1995 and correspond to coordinates on the WGS84 system. Likewise, the limits in the urban area are drawn on the basis of the Basic-Planimetric Map of Tacna, prepared by the Regional Planning, Budget and Institutional Development Office of the CTAR Tacna at a 1/5,000 scale.
Annex 97
605
606
Annex 98
Directorate of Hydrography and Navigation of the Navy, Derrotero de la Costa del Perú, Vol. II, 3rd edn, 2001
607
608
Annex 98
Annex 98
609
610
Annex 98
Annex 98
611
612
Annex 98
Annex 98
613
Art. 4 Infractions of the present provision on Maritime Traffic information shall be sanctioned in accordance with the Table of Fines of Captaincies.
[…]
ANNEX (2)
SYSTEM OF INFORMATION ON POSITION AND SECURITY IN THE
MARITIME DOMINION OF PERU
SPECIFIC PROCEDURE OF INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL MERCHANT VESSELS LARGER THAN 350 GRT AND FOREIGN VESSELS OF ANY TONNAGE AND TYPE ENTERING THE MARITIME DOMINION IN TRANSIT, OR REQUESTING ENTRY INTO PERUVIAN PORTS.
1st Case:
INFORMATION FOR ENTERING THE MARITIME DOMINION (EPW) – Information that the vessel must transmit at the moment of entry into the Maritime Dominion of Peru:
……....... SHIPREP (Identification of the System)
A……..... EPW
B……..... Vessel name, call sign and nationality
C……..... Date and hour (of entry into the Maritime Dominion)
D……..... Port of origin
E……..... Coordinates (upon entry into the Maritime Dominion)
F……..... True bearing
G……..... Speed
H……..... Port of destination
I……...... ETA
J……...... Route
K……..... Representing agency (Name)
2nd Case:
REPORT OF CHANGE OF COURSE (DR) – Information that the vessel must transmit at the moment of entry into the Maritime Dominion of correcting a report or a navigation plan:
……....... SHIPREP (Identification of the System)
A……..... DR
B……..... Vessel name, call sign and nationality
C……..... Date and hour of the event
E……..... Coordinates
F……..... True Bearing
G……..... Speed
H……..... Port of Destination
I……...... ETA
J……...... Route
K……..... Representing agency (Name)
X……..... (Event which prompted the change of course)
614
Annex 98
NOTE: The information for Departure from the Maritime Dominion shall be replaced by the Navigation Plan of Annex (5).
APPENDIX I TO ANNEX (2)
MODELS OF POSITION MESSAGES FOR MERCHANT VESSELS
1st Case:
SHIPREP/ EPW/ ATLAS/ LQVJ/ AR/ 191300/ BUENOS AIRES/1820S/07620W/330/20/CALLAO/ 301100/ RENADSA /.
2nd Case:
SHIPREP/ DR/ ATLAS/ LQVJ/ AR/ 192000/ 1622S/7635W/350/20/CALLAO/ 302100/ RENADSA /MECHANICAL FAILURE REPAIR ESTIMATED AT 10 HOURS/.
ANNEX (3)
SYSTEM OF INFORMATION ON POSITION AND SECURITY IN THE
MARITIME DOMINION OF PERU
SPECIFIC PROCEDURE OF INFORMATION FOR SCIENTIFIC OR FISHING VESSELS OF MORE THAN 350 GRT OF NATIONAL FLAG AND OF ANY TYPE, CAPACITY OR TONNAGE OF FOREIGN FLAG OPERATING IN THE MARITIME DOMINION
1st Case:
INFORMATION FOR ENTERING THE MARITIME DOMINION (EPW) – Information that the vessel must transmit at the moment of entry into the Maritime Dominion of Peru:
……....... SHIPREP (Identification of the System)
A……..... EPW
B……..... Vessel name, call sign and nationality
C……..... Date and hour (of entry into the Maritime Dominion)
D……..... Port of origin
E……..... Coordinates (upon entry into the Maritime Dominion)
F……..... True Bearing
G……..... Speed
H……..... Port of Destination
I……...... ETA
J……...... Representing agency (Name)
[…]
Annex 98
615
3rd Case:
EXIT FROM THE MARITIME DOMINION
(DPW) – Information that the vessel must transmit at the moment of exit from the Maritime Dominion:
……....... SHIPREP (Identification of the System)
A……..... DPW
B……..... Vessel name, call sign and nationality
C……..... Date and hour (of exit from the Maritime Dominion)
E……..... Coordinates (upon exit from the Maritime Dominion)
H……..... Port of Destination
APPENDIX I TO ANNEX (3)
MODELS OF POSITION MESSAGES FOR SCIENTIFIC OR FISHING
VESSELS
1st Case:
SHIPREP/ EPW/ ATLAS/ LQVJ/ AR/ 191300/ BUENOS AIRES/ 1820S/ 07620W/ 330/ 20/ CALLAO/ 301100/ OMEGA/.
[…]
3rd Case:
SHIPREP/ DPW/ SABOGAL/ OABP/ 301100/ 0324S/ 08130W/GUAYAQUIL/.
[...]
ANNEX (5)
STRUCTURE OF NAVIGATION PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED BY MARITIME AGENCIES TO PORT CAPTAINCY
01.-
02.-
03.-
04.-
05.-
06.-
07.-
08.-
09.-
10.-
11.-
12.-
13.-
14.-
15.-
16.-
Type of report……..... Navigation Plan (PN)
Vessel Name
International indicative
Flag
Port of Departure
Date and time of departure… a) Date: Day: (2) digits, Month: (2) digits, Year (2) digits
……………………………… b) Time: (4) digits
Bearing………………………..Three (3) digits
Approximate speed……………Two (2) digits
Port of destination
ETA
Route
………………………………….. …………………………………
………………………………….. …………………………………
Comments
Date
Captain’s name
Signature
Agency’s name
616
Annex 98
Annex 99
Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress of the Republic concerning Draft Legislative Resolution No. 813/2001-CR, 4 October 2004
Website of the former President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress available at http://www.gustavopacheco.com/dictamenconvemar.pdf
617
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención1SEÑOR PRESIDENTE:Ha ingresado a la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores del Congreso de laRepública, el proyecto de Resolución Legislativa N°813/2001-CR, que propone la aprobación de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el Acuerdo relativo a la aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención, adoptados el 10 de diciembre de 1982 y el 28 de julio de 1994 respectivamente, remitido por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de conformidad con el artículo 56º de la Constitución Política.I.- ANTECEDENTESMediante OF RE (TRA) Nº 3-0/74 sin fecha, recibido por el Congreso de laRepública el 31 de mayo de 2001, el entonces Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Excelentísimo Señor Embajador Javier Pérez de Cuellar somete a consideración delCongreso de la República para su aprobación la citada Convención, “conacuerdo del señor Presidente de la República”A este pedido le correspondió el número de proyecto de ley 1867/2000-CR y fue derivado a la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores por decreto de envío del 1 de junio de 2001. Mediante OF RE (TRA) Nº 3-0/115 del 20 de setiembre de 2001 el Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores doctor Diego García Sayán reitera el pedido, por lo que el proyecto de ley es actualizado con el Nº 813/2001-CREn el primerOficio se manifiesta que la adhesión cuenta con apoyo de losMinisterios de Defensa, Relaciones Exteriores, Pesquería y de Energía y Minas, adjunta las opiniones de los tres primeros, pero no el de Energía y Minas. Adjunta asimismo copia de la Resolución Suprema Nº 231-2001-RE del 28 de mayo de 2001 que aprueba tal remisión como consta en el diario oficial “EL Peruano” del 29 del mismo mes.El Oficio Nº 4626 SGMD-D del 21 de noviembre de 2000 contiene la opinión favorable del Ministerio de Defensa, que adjunta dos (2) anexos referidos a las apreciaciones sobre la Convención y las consideraciones para el trazado de las líneas de base.El Oficio 763-2000-PE/DVM del 20 de noviembre de 2000, contiene la opinión favorable del Ministerio de Pesquería. Al pedido de la Cancillería se adjunta el INFORME de los doctores Fabián Novak y Fernando Pardo, asesores jurídicos de la Cancillería, del 19 de febrero de 2001, la declaración del Gobierno del Perú depositada con el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas al adherir a la Convención y la relación de los ciento treinticinco (135) Estados partes firmantes y adherentes de la Convención.
618
Annex 99
Report concerning Draft Legislative Resolution No. 813/2001-CR, which proposes approval of accession of Peru to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of said Convention
MR. PRESIDENT,
Draft Legislative Resolution No. 813/2001-CR has been received by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress of the Republic, which proposes the approval of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of said Convention, adopted on 10 December 1982 and 28 July 1994, respectively, dispatched by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in accordance with article 56 of the Political Constitution.
[…]
Annex 99
619
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención2II.- REQUISTOS DE PROCEDIBILIDADEl artículo 56º de la Constitución Política, el artículo 76º - inciso 1, literal f) del Reglamentodel Congreso y la Ley Nº 26647, señalan los requisitos, las normas y los actos relativos al perfeccionamiento de los tratados celebrados por el Estado peruano.El pedido está dentro de los alcances del inciso b) del artículo 56º, inciso 3) del artículo 102º e inciso a) del artículo 125º de la Constitución Política.Reglamentariamente le es aplicable el inciso 1 - en su parte general y en el literal f)- del artículo 76º del Reglamento del Congreso de la República, que señala la obligación de las proposiciones presentadas por el Presidente de la República que deben estar refrendadas por el Presidente del Consejo de Ministros y, en forma opcional, por el Ministro o ministros que se relacionen con el tema, acompañadas por el texto íntegro del instrumento internacional, sus antecedentes, un informe sustentatorio del pedido, la opinión técnica favorable del sector o sectorescompetentes y la resolución suprema que aprueba su remisión al Congreso de la RepúblicaEstas condiciones están acreditadas, salvo la opinión del Ministerio de Energía y Minas no alcanzada. III.- CONTENIDO DEL PROYECTO DE LEYEl pedido del Poder Ejecutivo para que el Congreso de la República se pronuncie, mediante OF.RE (TRA) Nº 3-0/74, en su segundo párrafo señala que la adhesión a la Convención“... cuenta con un amplio apoyo de los diversos sectores y organismos del Ejecutivo, principalmente de los Ministerios de Defensa,Pesquería, Energía y Minas y Relaciones Exteriores”, sin embargo no adjunta la opinión del Ministerio de Energía y Minas, tal como consta en la parte final del citado oficio.El Ministerio de Defensa opina favorablemente el pedido mediante Oficio Nº 4626 SGMD-D del 21 de noviembre de 2000, pero en el cuarto párrafo señala lapertinencia de indicar que “... el Perú tiene pendiente la elaboración de su Ley de Línea de Base, tal como lo establece el artículo 54º de la Constitución Política, la emisión de la citada ley, junto a la adhesión a la Convención, permitiría implementar una estrategia que propicia concretar lasnegociaciones sobre Fronteras Marítimas con los países limítrofes, para lo cual por anexo (2) se remite consideraciones a tenerse en cuenta para la ejecución, debiendo precisarse que la Marina de Guerra participaría
620
Annex 99
[…]
III.- CONTENT OF THE BILL
[…]
Annex 99
621
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención3activamente en la parte técnica pero que corresponde al Ministerio deRelaciones Exteriores la responsabilidad de la ejecución y financiamiento”A este Oficio se adjunta como anexo (1) las APRECIACIONES A CONVENCIÓN DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS SOBRE EL DERECHO DEL MAR, que tienetambién importantes aportes al debate:En el punto j) se refiere al Acuerdo Relativo de la Parte XI de la Convención que modifica“... sustancialmente el espíritu de la Parte XI de laConvención y promoviendo que países con capacidad para llevar a cabo minería oceánica se adhieran a la misma”En el punto l): “Es importante mencionar la declaración mediante el cual Chile ratificó su adhesión a la Convención el 25 de agosto de 1997,precisando entre otros aspectos que no aceptaba los procesos desolución de controversias relacionadas con las normas de delimitación de las diversas áreas marítimas entre países colindantes”En el punto m) referido a la promulgación de una ley de líneas de base, dice“...que no permite la delimitación del dominio marítimo, lo cual generadificultades para efectos de control especialmente en las actividadespesqueras de naves extranjeras. Igualmente, suscribir la Convención y promulgar la Ley permitiría corregir el error existente en la legislaciónactual (Resolución Suprema Nº 23 del 12 de enero de 1955, Ley Nº 11780 del 12 marzo 1952) de medir las 200 millas siguiendo paralelos de lospuntos de costa”En el punto n) que se refiere a la afirmación repetida que la frontera pendiente de definir está en los sectores de Ecuador, Chile y alta mar, fortaleciéndoseinvoluntariamente “... el criterio errado de una eventual delimitaciónmarítima con Chile y Ecuador sobre el paralelo geográfico, aspecto que requiere enmendarse mediante una estrategia de negociación, utilizando el marco de la Convención parapoder concretar negociacionesbilaterales y alcanzar Tratados de límites marítimos”Así mismo se adjunta en anexo (2) CONSIDERACIONES PARA EL TRAZADO DE LAS LÍNEAS DE BASES, que señala el aspecto netamente técnico de esta ley, bajo consideraciones como:1.Que para ello el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores debería asumir laresponsabilidad de la determinación de líneas de base, con el asesoramiento de la Marina de Guerra. Este trabajo tendría dos etapas: de identificación y reconocimiento de campo y de gabinete para efectuar los cálculos geodésicos
622
Annex 99
[…]
It is attached to this Letter, as annex (1), the ASSESSMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, which also makes important contributions to the debate:
[…]
 In point m), related to the promulgation of a baselines law, it says “… that it does not allow for the delimitation of the maritime dominion, which generates difficulties for the purposes of control of, in particular, fishing activities of foreign vessels. Likewise, signing the Convention and promulgating the Law would allow correction of the error existing in the current legislation (Supreme Resolution No. 23 of 12 January 1955, Law No. 11780 of 12 March 1952) of measuring the 200 miles following parallels of coastal points”
 In point n), which refers to the repeated assertion that the frontier pending for definition is in the sectors of Ecuador, Chile and the high seas, involuntarily strengthening “… the misguided criterion of a possible maritime delimitation with Chile and Ecuador on the geographic parallel, an aspect which requires correction through a strategy of negotiation, using the framework of the Convention to be in a position to pursue bilateral negotiations and conclude maritime boundary Treaties”
[…]
Annex 99
623
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención4y el trazado de las líneas en la cartografía adecuada. Para ello“... esnecesario contar con una partida presupuestal” para los trabajos quepodrían durar 7 meses.2.En el punto i) indica que Ecuador ha emitido su Línea de Base mediante Decreto Supremo Nº 959-A del 28 de junio de 1971 apoyando su parte sur sobre puntos localizados en el Perú siguiendo un procedimiento nocontemplado en la Convención, y que Chile ha promulgado sus líneas de base sólo para la parte sur de su territorio. Finalmente, en el último párrafo del OF.RE (TRAS) Nº 3-0/74 señala que el Perú depositará una DECLARACIÓN al momento de la adhesión, con el Secretario de las Naciones Unidas. Sobre esta DECLARACIÓN los asesores jurídicos de laCancillería, doctores Fabián Novak y Fernando Pardo, mediante su INFORME del 19 de febrero de 2001 - página 7, señalan:1.Que establecería la invariable posición tradicional del Perú que consagra la Constitución Política de 1993.2.Que los límites marítimos del Perú serán establecidos conforme a lasdisposiciones de la Convención.3.Que una declaración interpretativa no debe confundirse con la reserva, pues no busca modificar ni extinguir una cláusula sino interpretarla en determinadosentido que no es extensible a los demás Estados miembros, es decir no es oponible a los demás miembros a menos que la acepten expresamente.4.Que tendrá sólo efectos de carácter político.5.Que pese a estas limitaciones nada impide plantearlo pues es práctica muy difundida en tratados multilaterales.IV.- CONTENIDO DE LA CONVENCIÓNLa Convención consta de Preámbulo, 320 artículos y 9 anexos.Los artículos están divididos en 17 partes, estas en secciones y las secciones en sub secciones, con el siguiente contexto básico.
624
Annex 99
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención20Convención y promoviendo que países con capacidad para llevar a cabo minería oceánica se adhieren a la misma”En el anexo (2) CONSIDERACIONES PARA EL TRAZADO DE LAS LÍNEAS DE BASES, se señala el aspecto netamente técnico de esta propuesta de ley de línea de base, que debería asumirla el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores con elasesoramiento de la Marina de Guerra, trabajo que tendría dos etapas: deidentificación y reconocimiento de campo y de gabinete para efectuar los cálculos geodésicos y el trazado de las líneas en la cartografía adecuada, siendo“...necesario contar con una partida presupuestal” para los trabajos que podrían durar 7 meses.El último párrafo del OF.RE (TRAS) Nº 3-0/74 se refiere al depòsito de unaDECLARACIÓN al momento de la adhesión. Sobre esta DECLARACIÓN losasesores jurídicos de la Cancillería, doctores Fabián Novak y Fernando Pardo, mediante su INFORME del 19 de febrero de 2001- página 7, señalan como efectos:1.Dejar establecido la posición tradicional e invariable del Perú consagrada en la Constitución Política de 19932.Que los límites marítimos del Perú serán establecidos conforme a lasdisposiciones de la Convención3.Esta declaración interpretativamente no debe ser confundida con la figura de la reserva, pues no busca modificar ni extinguir una cláusula sino interpretarla en determinado sentido que no es extensible a los demás Estados miembros, no es oponible a ellos a menos que la acepten expresamente,4.Que tendrá sólo efectos de carácter político, ya que estas limitaciones no impide pues es práctica muy difundida en tratados multilaterales.VI.-VENTAJAS Y DESVENTAJES DE LA SUSCRIPCIÓN1.- VENTAJASEl Derecho del Mar es una de las áreas del Derecho Internacional que haexperimentado mayor desarrollo en las últimas décadas. Luego que durantesiglos había imperado la división de los mares en dos zonas: los mares territoriales de los Estados ribereños –generalmente de entre 3 millas de anchura- y el alta mar, hacia mediados del siglo XX algunos Estados decidieron cuestionar el orden
[…]
VI.- ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SIGNATURE
1.- ADVANTAGES
[…]
Annex 99
625
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención21establecido, que beneficiaba únicamente a las grandes potencias, proclamando unilateralmente derechos en áreas más extensas, con el principal propósito de proteger los recursos naturales de los mares adyacentes a sus costas en favor de sus poblaciones. Se originó así una “revolución silenciosa”, que devendría en el establecimiento negociado por todos los Estados de un nuevo y completo régimen aplicable a la totalidad del espacio oceánico, a través de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar. El Perú es uno de los países pioneros en la revolución del régimen de losocéanos, al proclamar mediante el Decreto Supremo 781 del 1 de agosto de 1947, su soberanía y jurisdicción hasta las 200 millas del mar adyacente a sus costas, incluyendo el zócalo continental. Este instrumento no proclamó un mar territorialde 200 millas sino que estableció un espacio en el que el Perú ejercería soberanía y jurisdicción para “reservar, proteger, conservar y utilizar los recursos y riquezas naturales de toda clase que en o debajo de dicho mar se encuentren” La Convención del Mar es una norma de validez internacional, con derechos y criterios reivindicados por el Perú en 1947, que respondían a su necesidad de preservar las riquezas marinas, tanto hidrobiológicas como minerales del maradyacente a las costas nacionales, en beneficio de su población. Esta tesis fue impulsada por el Perú y los países suscriptores de la Declaración de Santiago de 1952, que proclamó “como norma de su política internacional marítima, lasoberanía y jurisdicción exclusivas que a cada uno de ellos corresponde sobre el mar que baña las costas de sus respectivos países, hasta una distancia mínima de 200 millas marinas”.En la etapa culminante de la negociación de la Convención del Mar, losrepresentantes de los Estados parte de la Declaración de Santiago expresaron “el reconocimiento universal de los derechos de soberanía y jurisdicción del Estado costero dentro del límite de 200 millas consagrado en el proyecto de laConvención, constituye un logro fundamental de los países que conforman laComisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur, en concordancia con los objetivos básicos previsto en la Declaración de Santiago de 1952. Dichos objetivos han sidorecogidos y desarrollados por la Convención del Mar, que incorpora al Derecho Internacional principios e instituciones esenciales para un más adecuado y justo aprovechamiento de los recursos contenidos en sus mares ribereños, en beneficio del desarrollo integral de sus pueblos inspirados en el deber y el derecho de protegerlos y de conservar y asegurar para ellos esas riquezas naturales”.La Convención del Mar reconoce a todo Estado ribereño, una zona económica exclusiva de hasta 200 millas, con derechos soberanos para la exploración yexplotación, conservación, administración y otras actividades económicas enrelación con los recursos naturales, tanto vivos como no vivos; y jurisdicción para
626
Annex 99
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención22el establecimiento y utilización de islas artificiales, instalaciones y estructuras, para la investigación científica marina y la protección y preservación del medio marino. Asimismo reconoce a todos los Estados ribereños –aún aquellos como el Perú, cuya plataforma continental física es de reducida extensión- una plataformacontinental “jurídica” de hasta 200 millas medidas también desde las líneas de base desde donde se mide el mar territorial, en la que tiene derechos soberanos exclusivos para la exploración y explotación de sus recursos naturales, tanto vivos como no vivos, con libertad de navegación.Para un amplio sector de la doctrina nacional (José Luis Bustamante y Rivero,Andrés Aramburú Menchaca, Alberto Ruiz Eldredge, Julio Vargas Prada, Alfonso Benavides Correa), la expresión dominio marítimo incorporada tanto en laConstitución de 1979 como en la de 1993, debe ser interpretada como sinónimo de mar territorial. Tal afirmación constituye el resultado de los siguientesargumentos:a)La expresión dominio marítimo es empleada en el texto de la Constitución de 1993, vinculada a los conceptos de soberanía y jurisdicción, que constituyen prerrogativas del Estado ejercidas dentro de su ámbito territorial. Enconsecuencia, cuando la Constitución se refiere a un dominio marítimo de 200 millas, está aludiendo a un mar territorial de igual extensión, soberano y de jurisdicción exclusiva;b)La expresión dominio marítimo incluida en el artículo 54º de la Constitución de 1993 se encuentra ubicada a su vez dentro del capítulo titulado “Del Estado, la Nación y el Territorio”, reafirmando su carácter territorial;c)El carácter territorial del dominio marítimo de 200 millas queda confirmado cuando el primer párrafo del artículo 54º expresamente señala que “el territorio del Estado ... comprende... el dominio marítimo”; y que este último a su vez se extiende “hasta la distancia de doscientas millas marinas”.d)El artículo 99º de la Constitución de 1979 estableció que el Estado ejerce soberanía y jurisdicción sobre el espacio aéreo que cubre su territorio y mar adyacente hasta el límite de las doscientasmillas.Por otro lado, otros juristas (Alfonso Arias Schreiber, Juan Miguel Bákula, Eduardo Ferrero Costa, Diego García Sayán, Domingo García Belaúnde, Raúl Ferrero Costa, entre otros), sostienen que la expresión “dominio marítimo” no es marterritorial. Se trata de una expresión jurídica que designa el ámbito de la posible acción del Estado de una manera comprensiva, sin definir institución jurídicaalguna. Por ello, en dicho “dominio marítimo” tienen cabida no sólo el marterritorial de 12 millas sino los otros espacios bajo jurisdicción nacionalestablecidos en la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar como la zona económica exclusiva hasta las 200 millas.
Annex 99
627
[…]
For a broad range of national commentators (José Luis Bustamante y Rivero, Andrés Aramburú Menchaca, Alberto Ruiz Eldredge, Julio Vargas Prada, Alfonso Benavides Correa), the expression maritime dominion, incorporated both in the Constitution of 1979 and in that of 1993, must be interpreted as synonymous with territorial sea. This assertion is based on the following arguments:
a) The expression maritime dominion is used in the text of the Constitution of 1993 in relation to the concepts of sovereignty and jurisdiction, which constitute prerogatives of the State exercised within its territorial scope. Consequently, when the Constitution refers to a 200-mile maritime dominion, it is alluding to a territorial sea of equal extent, sovereign and under exclusive jurisdiction;
b) The expression maritime dominion included in article 54 of the Constitution of 1993, in turn, is placed within the chapter entitled “The State, the Nation, and the Territory”, reasserting its territorial character;
c) The territorial character of the 200-mile maritime dominion is confirmed when the first paragraph of article 54 expressly points out that “the territory of the State…comprises… the maritime dominion”; and that the latter, in turn, extends “up to the distance of two hundred nautical miles”.
d) Article 99 of the Constitution of 1979 established that the State exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over the air space above its territory and the adjacent sea up to the limit of the two hundred miles.
On the other hand, other commentators (Alfonso Arias Schreiber, Juan Miguel Bákula, Eduardo Ferrero Costa, Diego García Sayán, Domingo García Belaúnde, Raúl Ferrero Costa, among others), contend that the expression “maritime dominion” does not refer to a territorial sea. It is a legal expression which indicates the scope of possible action by the State in a comprehensive manner, without defining any legal concept. Hence, within said “maritime dominion” there is room not only for the 12-mile territorial sea, but also for the other spaces under national jurisdiction established in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea such as the exclusive economic zone up to 200 miles.
[…]
628
Annex 99
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención23Esta posición se sustenta en los siguientes argumentos:a)La Constitución del Perú de 1979, al introducir en su artículo 97º la expresión “dominio marítimo” dejó de lado intencionalmente la expresión “mar territorial”, a fin de dejar abierta la posibilidad de la firma de la Convención del Mar. Así lo entiende el Embajador Juan Miguel Bákula al señalar:“La expresión dominio marítimo no define institución alguna de las reconocidaspor el Derecho Internacional.....y se limita a consagrar la realidad jurídicaperuana pre-existente, hoy incorporada a la norma universal a fin de que la Ley, como expresión de la soberanía nacional, adopte las precisiones que se consideren más adecuadas y defina esos diversos espacios marítimos enconcordancia con los tratados para su validez internacional”. (El dominiomarítimo del Perú. Lima, Fundación M. J. Bustamante de la Fuente, 1985,p.153).Esto no sólo consta en las actas, las votaciones y las opinionesfundamentadas que aparecen en el Diario de los Debates de la AsambleaConstituyente de 1979, sino también en las palabras del Presidente de laComisión Principal de Constitución, doctor Luis Alberto Sánchez, quien se refiere al tema en la sesión del Senado de 15 de setiembre de 1981, aldebatirse el tema de la firma de la Convención del Mar que estaba próxima a su adopción:“A pesar de lo tentadora que había sido la propuesta de llamar mar territorial al mar adyacente, económico y soberano, lo importante era que el Perú tuviera soberanía y jurisdicción sobre el mar hasta las 200 millas; y que el objeto de la fórmula aprobada por la Asamblea Constituyente era dejar abierta laposibilidad para que el Perú adoptase el mar territorial o para que, sin alterar la Constitución no quedase fuera de la Convención”.En el mismo sentido se manifestó el Presidente de la Comisión Especial del Estado, Territorio, Nacionalidad e Integración, doctor Andrés Townsend, alseñalar:“... Juzgo que la fórmula a que llegó la Comisión Principal mantiene dosposiciones fundamentales: la soberanía, autoridad y supervigilancia del Estado hasta las 200 millas y la posibilidad de concurrir al tratado internacional que define, de manera ecuménica, los derechos del mar” (diario El Comercio, 28 de enero de 1979).b)Si bien el concepto de dominio marítimo está incluido en la Constitución de 1979 dentro del capítulo del Territorio y en la Constitución de 1993 dentro del capítulo del Estado, la Nación y el Territorio, lo hace con un criterio meramente metodológico. Además, el hecho de que el dominio marítimo se incorpore
Annex 99
629
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención24dentro del capítulo del Territorio, no quiere decir que sea mar territorial, pues territorio y mar territorial son dos conceptos diferentes. c)Los términos soberanía y jurisdicción que consigna el texto constitucional con relación al dominio marítimo, son también empleados por la Convención sobre el Derecho del Mar con relación a las prerrogativas de que goza el Estado ribereño en la zona económica exclusiva. Por tanto, existe una concordancia entre ambos textos con respecto al uso de ambos conceptos.d)El artículo 54° de la Constitución de 1993, no incluye el régimen de paso inocente de naves de terceros Estados que tipifica la institución del marterritorial, sino que, utiliza el concepto de libertad de comunicacióninternacional, que es más bien propio de la zona económica exclusiva. (Alfonso Arias Schreiber. “Retos del Derecho del Mar”. En: Hacia una agenda nacional de política exterior. Lima, CEPEI, 1995, p. 70). En efecto, al establecerse en la Constitución que en el dominio marítimo hasta las 200 millas se respetan las libertades de comunicación internacional, se está diferenciando expresamente el concepto de dominio marítimo del concepto de mar territorial. e)En cuanto al espacio aéreo, la observación de los “territorialistas” fue superada con la inclusión de la expresión “sin perjuicio de la libertad de comunicación internacional”, precisamente para evitar cualquier obstáculo de carácterconstitucional que dificultara la adhesión del Perú a la Convención del Mar. Así consta en Actas por palabras expresas del Presidente de la Comisión de Constitución y del proponente doctor Eduardo Ferrero Costa (Eduardo Ferrero Costa. “Estado, Nación, Territorio y Tratados”. En: Análisis Internacionalnúmero 4, Lima, CEPEI. Pp. 32.33.)Esta segunda posición, sin embargo, da una interpretación demasiada amplia del espíritu y de le letra del artículo 54º de la Constitución. No toma en cuenta que el primer párrafo de dicho artículo, después de haber definido que el Estado es inalienable e inviolable, expresamente señala que el “territorio del Estado”“comprende el suelo, el subsuelo, el dominio marítimo, y el espacio aéreo que los cubre”. Vale decir el espacio marítimo y aéreo comprendido dentro de lasdoscientas millas, de acuerdo a la Constitución vigente es “Territorio del Estado” lo que no se adecua a un simple reconocimiento de “Zona Económica Exclusiva” de la que habla la Convención y que sólo se aplica al mar.De otro lado, a diferencia de la Convención que toma el término “soberanía” en un sentido amplio y análogo la Constitución Política del Perú lo toma en un sentido estricto cuando lo aplica tanto al dominio marítimo como al espacio aéreo, por lo que la Convención no es compatible con nuestra Constitución vigente.Por lo antes expuesto, se concluye que, efectivamente la Convención del Mar, afecta disposiciones constitucionales expresas, razón por la cual de conformidad
630
Annex 99
[…]
This second position, nevertheless, interprets the spirit and letter of Article 54 of the Constitution too broadly. It does not take into account that the first paragraph of that article, after having established that the State is inalienable and inviolable, expressly indicates that the “territory of the State” “comprises the soil, the subsoil, the maritime dominion, and the air space above them”. That is to say, the maritime and air space comprised within the two hundred miles, in accordance with the Constitution in force, is “Territory of the State”, which does not fit with a mere acknowledgement of the “Exclusive Economic Zone” to which the Convention refers and which only applies to the sea.
On the other hand, unlike the Convention, which uses the term “sovereignty” in a broad sense, the Political Constitution of Peru uses it in a strict sense when it applies it both to the maritime dominion and to the airspace, as a result of which the Convention is not compatible with our Constitution in force.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that, in fact, the Convention of the [Law of the] Sea affects express constitutional provisions, for which reason, in accordance with
Annex 99
631
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención25con el segundo párrafo del articulo 57° de la Constitución Política, su aprobación requerirá de la aplicación del procedimiento establecido para su reforma, previsto en el artículo 206° del referido texto constitucional. De lo expuesto se podría concluir en las siguientes ventajas de la adhesión:a)Brinda seguridad jurídica y estabilidad en las relacione entre los Estados. Se trata de un acuerdo comprehensivo que establece un equilibrio entre los derechos y deberes de los Estados y que regula todos los aspectos vinculados a los espacios marinos; promueve la óptima utilización de los recursos vivos y no vivos, regula y facilita la cooperación internacional para la investigacióncientífica, la transferencia de la tecnología y la protección del medio marino. b)Insertarse en el orden internacional dando al espacio oceánico un carácter de sistema total y someter sus usos a un régimen aceptado por la comunidad de naciones. Lo contrario es la marginalidad en un mundo crecientementeglobalizado. Actualmente, son Parte de la Convención 145 Estados. EnAmérica Latina figuran, entre otros, Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, CostaRica, Cuba, Guatemala, Haití, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panamá,Paraguay, y Uruguay. Asimismo, son parte de la Convención gran número de los países de la Cuenca del Pacífico, que incluye a Japón, República de Corea, China y la Federación Rusa. Los países de la Unión Europea son también Estados parte. En lo que respecta a los Estados Unidos de América, laadhesión a la Convención ha sido aprobada a nivel de la Comisión deRelaciones Exteriores del Senado y se espera que en breve sea considerada en el pleno de dicha Cámara.c)Protege los intereses y asegura los derechos del Estado ribereño sobre sus recursos dentro de las zonas bajo jurisdicción nacional hasta las 200 millas, en términos que superan latesis defendida por el Perú y otros Estados. LaConvención no afectará la pesca artesanal, comercial o industrial; por elcontrario, será ampliamente beneficiada por la cooperación internacional en investigación científica y transferencia de tecnología. d)Garantizar la participación del Perú en los regímenes que regulan la pesca en alta mar en términos que le permitan asegurar sus intereses en laconservación de las especies transzonales y altamente migratorias.e)Participar en los regímenes y mecanismos que se han creado a partir de la Convención del Mar. Merecen especial mención las reuniones de los Estados Parte en las que se examina el proceso de aplicación de la Convención y el Tribunal del Mar. Sólo los Estados Parte pueden presentar candidaturas paramagistrados del citado Tribunal así como para tribunales arbitrales y listas de conciliadores.
632
Annex 99
the second paragraph of article 57 of the Political Constitution, its approval shall require the application of the procedure established for its reform, provided for in article 206 of the abovementioned constitutional text.
[…]
Annex 99
633
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención26f)Permite al Perú, como país minero, participar plenamente en la Autoridad de los Fondos Marinos para hacer valer y proteger su interés. Debido a la decididaacción de los países en desarrollo, los fondos marinos situados más allá de la jurisdicción nacional fueron declarados "patrimonio común de la humanidad". La administración de los recursos mineros que se encuentran depositados en el lecho del mar está encargada sólo a los Estados Partes, los que no lo sonse encuentran fuera de la toma de decisiones. g)Garantiza al Perú la libertad de navegación que es fundamental para eldesarrollo de su comercio que en un 95 por ciento se efectúa por mar. La Convención evita la discrecionalidad de los Estados para restringir estederecho. Asimismo el sobrevuelo y tendido de cables y tuberías submarinas en la zona económica exclusiva y la plataforma continental son derechos de todas las partes. h)Brinda protección a sus intereses en materia de protección y preservación del medio ambiente marino y de sus ecosistemas al establecer normas quepromueven un enfoque integrado en el manejo del espacio oceánico y sus recursos, así como la obligación de cooperar y coordinar a nivel regional y global en el establecimiento de regímenes orientados a estos fines. i)Fortalece la capacidad de negociación del Perú en su controversia sobrelímites marítimos ofreciéndole criterios y métodos para alcanzar una solución equitativa utilizado preferentemente la línea media o equidistante2.- DESVENTAJASEn su magnífico y peruanista libro “Una difícil vecindad”, Alfonso BenavidesCorrea, incansable propulsor de la tesis territorialista y defensor acérrimo de las 200 millas que consagra la Constitución Política, anota lo siguiente:“De adherirse el Perú a la Convención del Mar de las Naciones Unidas sobre Derecho del Mar, adhesión que empeñosamente persiguen quienes, de estamanera, con la mejor buena fe, consideran equívocamente que cumplen el deber de resguardar y proteger los intereses nacionales:1)El Perú reduciría la anchura de su mar territorial de 200 millas marinas a 12 y, en estas 12 millas, su soberanía tampoco sería absoluta pues ella tendría que ejercerla con arreglo a la Convención y otras normas de derecho internacional (artículo 2º- inciso e y artículo 3º).
634
Annex 99
[…]
2.- DISADVANTAGES
In his excellent and pro-Peruvian book “A difficult neighbourhood”, Alfonso Benavides Correa, indefatigable promoter of the territorialist thesis and staunch defender of the 200 miles enshrined in the Political Constitution, points out that:
[…]
1) Peru would reduce the breadth of its 200-nautical mile territorial sea to 12 and, within these 12 miles, its sovereignty would not be absolute either, as it would have to exercise it in accordance with the Convention and other norms of international law (article 2 – paragraph e and article 3).
Annex 99
635
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención272)El Perú convertiría las 188 millas de su mutilado dominio marítimo uninacional en un condominio marítimo multinacional maliciosamente llamado “ZonaEconómicamente Exclusiva” sujeta a un régimen en el cual las disposiciones de la Convención, no de la ley peruana, regirían los derechos y obligaciones del Estado ribereño, vale decir del Perú y de los demás Estados (artículo 58º)3)El Perú vería gravemente amenazados los intereses de la Defensa Nacional no sólo en un caso de ataque o de una invasión armada por mar o aire sino por espionaje o actos de merodeo. 4)El Perú mutilaría igualmente el espacio aéreo que cubre actualmente sudominio marítimo de 200 millas, espacio aéreoen el que, conforme a laConvención de París de 1919, toda potencia tiene soberanía plena y exclusiva.5)El Perú no podría adherirse con “reservas” a la Convención por que éstaimpide las reservas y las excepciones (artículo 309º). 6)El Perú, de adherirse a la Convención, no podría proponer enmiendas a ella por que, para su simple admisión a debate, exige que la mitad de los Estados partes, respondan favorablemente a la solicitud modificatoria y, en caso de enmienda simplificada, sin convocatoria a Conferencia, basta que un Estado se oponga para que el pedido de enmienda sea automáticamente rechazado (artículo 312º- inciso 1 y artículo 313º - inciso 3). 7)El Perú no podría, de adherirse a la Convención, reivindicar los derechos que hubiere renunciado por la adhesión ya que la Convención franquea sudenuncia pero establece que ningún Estado quedará dispensado por causa de la denuncia de las obligaciones financieras y contractuales contraídas mientras era Parte de la Convención ni la denuncia afectará a ningún derecho,obligación o situación jurídica creados para la ejecución de la Convención(artículo 317º- inciso 2).No sería todo.De adherirse a la Convención sobre Derecho del Mar también sufriría Perú la imposición de las servidumbres que, bajo la denominación de “libre tránsito”,establecen los artículos 69º y 125º.No puede pasar inadvertido que el artículo 69º de la Convención consagra el “Derecho de los Estados sin Litoral” a participar en la explotación de una parte apropiada excedente de recursos vivos de las sarcásticamente llamadas “Zonas Económicas Exclusivas” de los Estados ribereños de la misma subregión o región. Menos aún puede el Perú dejar de percatarse que el artículo 125º de la
636
Annex 99
2) Peru would convert 188 miles of its mutilated national maritime dominion into a multinational maritime condominium maliciously called “Exclusive Economic Zone”, subject to a regime in which the provisions of the Convention, not Peruvian law, would govern rights and obligations of the riparian State, that is to say of Peru and other States (article 58).
[…]
4) Peru would likewise mutilate the airspace at present above its 200-mile maritime dominion, an airspace in which, according to the Paris Convention of 1919, every power has full and exclusive sovereignty.
[…]
Annex 99
637
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención29territorios que a Bolivia le pertenecieron hasta el 20 de octubre de 1904 en que, de sur a norte, Bolivia tuvo como puertos propios Antofagasta, Mejillones, Cobija y Tocopilla.Chile no le ofrece a Bolivia ninguno de estos puertos porque, desde 1879, le ofreció Tacna y Arica a Bolivia, o únicamente Arica, o una fracción de Arica, que no pertenecían a Bolivia sino al Perú que se proyectaba desmembrar, como canje por Atacama que Chile le sustrajo a Bolivia y cómo póliza de seguro de Tarapacá que Chile le arrebató al Perú”Pp. 179-183 op. cit.VII.- EFECTO DE LA NORMA EN LA LEGISLACION NACIONAL1.- CONSTITUCIONALES:Para la aplicación del Convenio debe reformarse el último acápite del segundo párrafo del artículo 54º de la Constitución Política, pudiéndose aplicar uno de los procedimientos señalado en el artículo 206º de nuestra Carta Fundamental:De adherirse el Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar, ésta constituirá parte de su derecho interno, de conformidad con elartículo 55° de la Constitución, porque se trata de una materia que afecta el texto y sentido de la Constitución Política por lo que su aprobación requiere elprocedimiento especial que consigna el artículo 206° que consagra dos opciones: doble votación o votación y referéndum.a)Mediante votación favorable de la mayoría absoluta del numero legal decongresistas ratificada mediante referéndum.b)La votación favorable superior a los dos tercios del número legal decongresistas en dos legislaturas ordinarias sucesivas.La Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores en ejercicio de la facultad dictaminadora que le encomienda el Pleno, considera la aprobación por el Congresoy susometimiento a ratificación de la Nación mediante referéndum.Si bien el Congreso tiene facultades plenas para aprobar normas que reforma nuestra Constitución, la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores estima que portratarse de una materia esencial en la configuración de la forma de nuestroEstado, como es la definición y extensión del territorio soberano, el acto deaprobación debe quedar condicionado a la ratificación popular.
638
Annex 99
[…]
VII. EFFECT OF THE RULE ON THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION
1.- CONSTITUTIONAL:
For the implementation of the Convention the last part of the second paragraph of article 54 of the Political Constitution must be amended; one of the procedures set out in article 206 of our Magna Carta may be applied:
[…]
Annex 99
639
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención31emisión de la citada ley, junto a la adhesión a la Convención, permitiríaimplementar una estrategia que propicia concretar las negociaciones sobre Fronteras Marítimas con los países limítrofes, para lo cual por anexo (2) se remite consideraciones a tenerse en cuenta para la ejecución, debiendoprecisarse que la Marina de Guerra participaría activamente en la parte técnica pero que corresponde al Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores laresponsabilidad de la ejecución y financiamiento”En el punto m): referido a la promulgación de una ley de líneas de base, “... que no permite la delimitación del dominio marítimo, lo cual genera dificultades para efectos de control especialmente en las actividades pesqueras denaves extranjeras. Igualmente, suscribir la Convención y promulgar la Ley permitiría corregir el error existente en la legislación actual (ResoluciónSuprema Nº 23 del 12 de enero de 1955, Ley Nº 11780 del 12 marzo 1952) de medir las 200 millas siguiendo paralelos de los puntos de costa”En el punto n), que se refiere a la afirmación repetida que la frontera pendiente de definir está en los sectores de Ecuador, Chile y alta mar, fortaleciéndoseinvoluntariamente “... el criterio errado de una eventual delimitación marítima con Chile y Ecuador sobre el paralelo geográfico, aspecto que requiereenmendarse mediante una estrategia de negociación, utilizando el marco de la Convención para poder concretar negociaciones bilaterales y alcanzarTratados de límites marítimos”Los efectos legales se determinarán según el documento que el Pleno apruebe.Las alternativas ante asunto tan importante son:a)Una resolución legislativa aprobando la adhesión.b)Una resolución legislativa aprobando la adhesión y a la vez señalando el procedimiento para la reforma constitucional.c)Una resolución legislativa aprobando la adhesión condicionada a laaprobación de una ley de líneas de base.VIII.- CONCLUSIÓNConforme lo expuesto la Comisión considera que al no ser parte el Perú del ordenjurídico internacional del océano representado por la Convención del Mar, sus intereses marítimos están desprotegidos por lo que no podría aprovechar las ventajas que este instrumento internacional ofrece.
640
Annex 99
[…]
VIII.- CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Committee considers that since Peru is not party to the international legal order of the ocean embodied in the Convention of the Sea, its maritime interests are unprotected, and it cannot benefit from the advantages which this international instrument offers.
Annex 99
641
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención32En tal virtud, la Comisión opina favorablemente a la adhesión del Perú a laConvención de la Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y al Acuerdo de aplicación de la Parte XI de dicho instrumento, pero precisando que su aprobación requiere una reforma constitucional.Por ello la aprobación por parte del Congreso es lo que los escolásticos llamarían un “requisito previo” o una “conditio sine qua non”, para que el soberano de toda democracia que es el pueblo se pronuncie también.Debemos reconocer que no sólo el profesional o político tenga la posibilidad de conocer los pro y los contra de la Convención del Mar que puede ser un tema completamente desconocido para la mayoría de nuestro pueblo, por lo que se requiere previamente que el tema pase a la debate público, lo que requiere un tiempo debido y bajo ciertas condiciones mínimasPor estas consideraciones la Comisión de Relaciones Exteriores, a la vez que, de conformidad con el inciso b) del artículo 70° del Reglamento del Congreso de la RepúblicaAPRUEBA por unanimidad de los Congresistas presentes yrecomienda al Pleno del Congreso de la República la aprobación del siguiente TEXTO SUSTITUTORIOEl Congreso de la RepúblicaHa dado la Resolución Legislativa siguiente:RESOLUCIÒN LEGISLATIVA QUE APRUEBA LA ADHESIÓN DEL PERÚ A LA CONVENCIÒN DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS SOBRE EL DERECHO DEL MAR Y EL ACUERDO RELATIVO A LA APLICACIÓN DE LA PARTE XI DE DICHA CONVENCIÓN, SUPEDITADA A REFERNDUM NACIONALARTICULO 1º.- Objeto de la Resolución LegislativaApruébase la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el Acuerdo Relativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención, según el procedimiento establecido en la presente ResoluciónLegislativa.ARTÍCULO 2º.- Referéndum
642
Annex 99
By virtue of the foregoing, the Committee expresses its favourable opinion with regard to the accession of Peru to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of said instrument, but specifying that its approval requires a constitutional reform.
[…]
Annex 99
643
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención34____________________________________GUSTAVO PACHECO –VILLARPRESIDENTE__________________________ _____________________________DORIS SANCHEZ PINEDO HECTOR CHAVEZ CHUCHON VICEPRESIDENTA SECRETARIO________________________________ ___________________________________ LUIS SANTA MARIA CALDERON JOSE L. DELGADO NÚÑEZ DEL ARCO _____________________________ _______________________________________ MARIO OCHOA VARGAS ROSA GRACIELA YANARICO HUANCA
644
Annex 99
Dictamen recaído en el Proyecto deResolución Legislativa N° 813/2001-CR,que propone aprobar la adhesión del Perú a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y el AcuerdoRelativo a la Aplicación de la Parte XI de dicha Convención35 ______________________________ _______________________________ MÁXIMO MENA MELGAREJO JORGE CHAVEZ SIBINA ___________________________ RAFAEL REY REY
Annex 99
645
646
Annex 100
Letter No. V.200-3762 of 27 November 2009 from the Captaincy of Callao to Merchant Shipping Companies
Archives of the Maritime Coastguard Captaincy of Callao
647
648
Annex 100
V.200-3762
Callao, 27 November 2009
Maritime Agencies
I am pleased to write to you in relation to the various foreign-flagged Merchant Vessels which have, to date, been reporting their entry into Peruvian waters to electronic mail [addresses] which are not correct or which have not been authorized by this Maritime Authority.
In this respect, this Maritime Coastguard Captaincy is obliged to inform you that, as of today, those who you represent shall comply with the provisions set out in Directorial Resolution No. 0313-94-DGC of 23 September 1994 and Directorial Resolution No. 330-2005/DCG of 28 June 2005 which provide that every vessel shall report and/or communicate its entry into Peruvian waters using several e-mail addresses such as: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] or fax Costera Callao 429-9798, 429-1547.
With nothing further, I take this opportunity to reiterate the assurances of my highest consideration.
Sincerely,
Captain
Rodolfo SABLICH Luna Victoria
[signed]
Harbour Master of Callao
Annex 100
649
650
Annex 101
Law No. 29687 of 19 May 2011, amending Law No. 28621 of 3 November 2005: Baselines Law of the Maritime Dominion of Peru
El Peruano, 19 May 2011
651
652
Annex 101
LAW AMENDING LAW No. 28621,
BASELINES LAW
OF THE MARITIME DOMINION OF PERU
Article 1. Object of the Law
The present Law adapts Law 28621, Baselines Law of the Maritime Dominion of Peru, to technical accuracies achieved in the calculation of equivalents of astronomical coordinates and geodesic coordinates, as well as to the terms of the Agreement reached between Peru and Ecuador on maritime boundaries, including the implementation of joint action with a view to recognizing the Gulf of Guayaquil as an historical bay.
Article 2. Coordinates of Point No. 1 of the baselines of the maritime dominion of Peru
It is hereby clarified that the equivalent to the astronomical coordinates of the starting point of the baselines to the North, to which article 2 of Law 28621 refers and which appears as Point No. 1 in the list contained in Annex 1 of the Law, corresponds to coordinates WGS84 03º23'31.65'' S, 80º18'49.27'' W, which are recorded in Annex II to the present Law.
Article 3. Drawing of straight baseline in the extreme north
It is hereby established that in the north of Peru a straight baseline is drawn from coordinates WGS84 04º15'00.6'' S, 81º14'21.2'' W, in Punta Cabo Blanco, which corresponds to Point No. 24 of the baselines of the maritime dominion of Peru, to the point of convergence with the baselines of the Republic of Ecuador, at coordinates WGS84 03º23'31.65'' S, 81º09'12.53'' W, which hereafter is called “Start of the Peru-Ecuador Maritime Boundary”.
Article 4. Starting Point of the Peru-Ecuador Maritime Boundary
The Starting Point of the Peru-Ecuador Maritime Boundary, and its respective coordinates, is added at the beginning of the list contained in Annex 1 to Law 28621, without number, replaced by Annex II to the present Law.
[…]
Annex 101
653
654
Annex 101
ANNEX II
Consolidated list of points of the baselines system of the Peruvian coast
No.
PLACE
LATITUDE SOUTH
LONGITUDE WEST
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POINT
No. CHART ROUTE
Start of the Peru-Ecuador Maritime Boundary
03º 23' 31.65'' S
81º 09' 12.53'' W
Starting Point of the Peru-Ecuador Maritime Boundary
01
Frontier Point at Boca Capones
03º 23' 31.65'' S
80º 18' 49.27'' W
Northern terminus
Reference for internal waters
PC-LB 01-2011
02
Punta Cherres
03º 29' 10.6'' S
80º 26' 54.8'' W
Reference for internal waters
PC-LB 01-2011
03
Punta Malpelo
03º 30' 13.6'' S
80º 30' 20.7'' W
Reference for internal waters
PC-LB 01-2011
[…]
Annex 101
655
656
Annex 102
National Institute of Statistics and Information of Peru, Perú: Compendio Estadístico 2008
Website of the National Institute of Statistics and Information of Peru available at http://www.inei.gob.pe/biblioineipub/bancopub/Est/Lib0808/Libro.pdf
657
PERÚ: Compendio Estadístico 2008 11 T ERRITORIO 1 Territorio ste capítulo contiene información sobre las principales características del globo terráqueo, E superficie y población de los 40 países más extensos del mundo, según referencia de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas. Además, se presenta la hora y ubicación geográfica de las 65 principales ciudades del planeta. Incluye información sobre diferentes aspectos geográficos del territorio nacional, localización geográfica de los puntos extremos, longitud del perímetro y fronteras; superficie geográfica, latitudinal, continental, lacustre e insular del país, ríos más extensos y la altitud de los 50 nevados a partir de 6000 metros sobre el nivel del mar. También, la superficie y densidad poblacional de las 194 provincias con altitud de la capital de cada provincia, a nivel departamental y la Provincia Constitucional del Callao, la extensión y altitud de más de 50 lagunas, la altitud de más de 112 abras y 15 pongos, la ubicación geográfica y política de 60 puertos marítimos, 42 fluviales y 6 lacustres; así como los dispositivos de creación y número de distritos y provincias de los 24 departamentos y la Provincia Constitucional del Callao que conforman el país. Las fuentes de información son: la Enciclopedia Ilustrada Larousse 1999, Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) e Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI).
658
Annex 102
1. Territory
This chapter contains information regarding the main characteristics of the globe, the surface and population of the world’s 40 largest countries, according to information from the United Nations. Moreover, it shows the time [zone] and the geographic location of the planet’s 65 largest cities.
It includes information on several geographic aspects of the national territory, geographic location of the extreme points, length of the perimeter and [the] frontiers; the country’s geographic, latitudinal, continental, lacustrine and insular surface; the largest rivers; and the altitude of 50 snow-capped mountains from 6000 metres above sea level. Also, the surface and population density of 194 provinces, and the altitude of the capital of each province, at the departmental level, and the Constitutional Province of Callao, the extent and altitude of more than 112 coves and 15 pongos, the geographic and political location of 60 maritime, 42 fluvial and 6 lacustrine ports; as well as provisions on the creation and number of districts and provinces of 24 departments and the Constitutional Province of Callao, which form the country.
[…]
Annex 102
659
PERÚ: Compendio Estadístico 2008 24 1.11 SUPERFICIE INSULAR, SEGÚN DEPARTAMENTO Departamento Superficie Departamento Superficie Isla (Kilómetros Isla (Kilómetros cuadrados) cuadrados) Superficie insular total 133,40 Superficie insular marítima 94,36 Piura 1,32 Superficie insular lacustre 39,04 Isla Foca 0,92 Lago Titicaca (Parte peruana) 27,60 Isla "G" 0,40 Lago Huiñaimarca 11,44 Tumbes 11,94 Arequipa 1,46 Isla Tumbes Nº 1 0,36 Isla Hornillos 0,25 Isla Tumbes Nº 2 0,16 Isla Blanca 0,15 Isla Cucaracha "A" 0,08 Isla Casca 0,15 Isla Cucaracha "B" 0,10 Isla Saragosa 0,30 Isla Correa 4,60 Isla Hollaques o Huallaques 0,10 Isla Matapalo 6,08 Isla "K" 0,30 Isla Roncal 0,56 Isla Perica 0,01 Isla "L" 0,02 Moquegua 0,09 Isla "M" 0,02 Isla Coles 0,09 Isla Carrizal 0,08 Isla Los Frailes 0,08 Tacna 0,16 Islote Ite 0,16 Áncash 12,23 Isla Blanca 4,00 Puno 39,04 Isla de Santa Ana "A" 3,20 Lago Titicaca 27,60 Isla de Santa Ana "B" 0,18 Isla Chirita N 1 3,00 Islote Santa (Isla Mesías) 0,24 Isla Chirita N 2 1,80 Isla de La Viuda o Los Chimus 0,16 Isla Ustute o Jaspiqui 1,44 Isla Ferrol 1,56 Isla Amantaní 1/ 9,28 Isla Tortuga 1,34 Isla Taquile 1/ 5,72 Isla "A" Nº 123 0,40 Isla Chilata o Chilatahua 0,60 Isla "B" Peñas Blancas o Santa 0,40 Isla Quipata o Quipatahua 1,44 Isla Cornejo 0,36 Isla Esteves 0,12 Isla Patillos 0,10 Isla "D" Números 123 0,24 Isla Gritalobos 0,09 Isla "E" Nº 2 0,40 Isla Erizo 0,08 Isla Soto 2,60 Isla Manache 0,06 Isla Suasi 0,60 Isla Corcovado 0,03 Isla Campanario o Tacailuche 0,20 Isla Tamboreo Grande 0,03 Isla "F" 0,16 Continúa... Continúa...
660
Annex 102
1.11 INSULAR SURFACE, BY DEPARTMENT
Department
Island
Surface (Square kilometres)
Department
Island
Surface (Square kilometres)
[…]
[…]
[…]
Arequipa
1.46
Isla Hornillos
0.25
Isla Blanca
0.15
Isla Casca
0.15
Isla Saragosa
0.30
Isla Hollaques or Huallaques
0.10
Isla “K”
0.30
Isla Perica
0.01
Isla “L”
0.02
Moquegua
0.09
Isla “M”
0.02
Isla Coles
0.09
Isla Carrizal
0.08
Isla Los Frailes
0.08
[…]
Annex 102
661
PERÚ: Compendio Estadístico 2008 25 T ERRITORIO 1.11 SUPERFICIE INSULAR, SEGÚN DEPARTAMENTO Conclusión Departamento Superficie Departamento Superficie Isla (Kilómetros Isla (Kilómetros cuadrados) cuadrados) Puno La Libertad 4,48 Lago Huiñaimarca 11,44 Isla Guañape ( Norte y Sur ) 1,36 Isla Iscaya 1,72 Isla Chao 0,80 Isla Asnahuya o Llote 0,18 Isla Macabí 0,28 Isla Caana 2/ 1,15 Isla Viuda 1,34 Isla Pataguata 2/ 0,30 Isla Corcovado 0,70 Isla Yuspique 2/ 3,20 Isla Anapia 2/ 3,40 Lima 4,73 Isla Suaria 2/ 0,80 Isla San Martín 0,24 Isla Caano 2/ 0,44 Isla Mazorca 0,36 Isla Huatacaano 2/ 0,16 Isla de Pescadores 0,40 Isla Guatasuana 2/ 0,09 Isla "G" 0,18 Isla Asia 1,52 Ica 22,32 Isla "H" (Isla Checos) 0,48 Isla San Gallan o San Sangayan 9,32 Isla "I" (Isla Cerro Blanco) 0,16 Isla Chincha Norte 0,36 Isla Pachacámac 0,64 Isla Chincha Centro 0,40 Isla Chuncho 0,44 Isla Chincha Sur 0,16 Peñón San Francisco 0,12 Isla Ballestas Norte 0,12 Grupo Farallones 0,08 Isla Ballestas Centro 0,12 Isla Sauce 0,02 Isla Ballestas Sur 0,12 Isla "J" (Islote Gallardo) 0,09 Isla "N" (Ensenada San Fernando) 0,16 Isla "Ñ" Números 123 0,07 Provincia Constitucional del Callao 3/ 17,63 Isla del Infiernillo 0,05 Isla San Lorenzo 16,48 Isla "O" 0,05 Isla Frontón 1,00 Isla "P"(Punta Olleros) 0,03 Isla Cavinzas 0,08 Isla de La Vieja (Independencia) 11,00 Isla Redonda 0,07 Isla Santa Rosita 0,08 Isla Santa Rosa 0,28 Lambayeque 18,00 Isla Lobos de Tierra 16,00 Isla Lobos de Afuera 2,00 Continúa… 1/ Conforman el distrito insular de Amantaní (15 km 2 ) perteneciente a la provincia de Puno. 2/ Conforman el distrito Insular de Anapia (9,54 km 2 ) perteneciente a la provincia de Yunguyo. 3/ Ley S/N del 22 de abril de 1857. Fuente: Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática Dirección Nacional de Censos y Encuestas.
662
Annex 102
TEXTS AND DOCUMENTS OF THIRD STATES
663
664
Annex 103
Report of 5 July 1936 on the Inauguration of the Mark at the Northern Terminal of the Boundary between Surinam and British Guiana, exhibited as Annex 2 to the Counter-Memorial of Suriname
Annex 2 to the Counter-Memorial of Suriname in Guyana v. Suriname, website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
665
666
Annex 103
Annex 103
667
668
Annex 104
Costa Rican Law No. 116 of 27 July 1948 Proclaiming National Sovereignty over the Continental Shelf and the Epicontinental Sea
Official Journal of the Republic of Costa Rica No. 171, 29 July 1948
669
Recuerde que Control F (si utiliza Explorer) es una opción que le permite buscar en la totalidad del texto Ir al final del documentoProclama Soberanía Nacional en Zócalo Continental y Mar Epicontinental Page 1 of 3Ley 116http://www.pgr.go.cr/scij/scripts/TextoCompleto.dll?Texto&nNorma=35528&…...
670
Annex 104
Proclaims National Sovereignty over Continental Shelf and Epicontinental Sea
Whereas:
[…]
2.- In order to accomplish a methodical and technical regulation of those national resources, it is indispensable that the State proclaims national sovereignty and jurisdiction over the submarine platform or continental and insular shelf adjacent to the continental and insular coasts and over the seas adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the territory of the Nation, as other States have done (declaration of the President of the United States of America of 28 September 1946; declaration of the President of the United Mexican States of 19 October 1945; declaration of the President of the Argentine Republic of 11 October 1946, declaration of the President of the Republic of Chile of [2]3 June 1947; and decree of the President of the Republic of Peru of 1 August 1947).
[…]
Annex 104
671
Page 2 of 3Ley 116http://www.pgr.go.cr/scij/scripts/TextoCompleto.dll?Texto&nNorma=35528&…...
672
Annex 104
DECREES:
ARTICLE 1.- National Sovereignty is hereby confirmed and proclaimed over the entire submarine platform or continental and insular shelf adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the national territory, whatever the depth at which it may be, reaffirming the inalienable right of the Nation over all the natural riches which exist over, in or under the said shelf or platform, known or to be discovered.
[…]
ARTICLE 2.- National Sovereignty is hereby confirmed and proclaimed over the seas adjacent to the continental and insular coasts of the national territory, whatever their depth may be, and to the extent necessary to protect, preserve and exploit natural resources and riches which exist or come to exist over, in, or under them, maritime fishing and hunting carried out in the said seas remaining from now on under the surveillance of the Government of Costa Rica, for the purposes of avoiding harm to the citizens and the economy of the Nation and the American Continent by inadequate exploitation of the natural riches.
[…]
ARTICLE 3.- The demarcation of the zones of protection of maritime fishing and hunting in the continental and insular seas, which by virtue of the present Decree-Law are placed under the control of the Government of Costa Rica, shall be made, in accordance with the declaration of Sovereignty, whenever the
Annex 104
673
Page 3 of 3Ley 116http://www.pgr.go.cr/scij/scripts/TextoCompleto.dll?Texto&nNorma=35528&…...
674
Annex 104
Government sees fit, either by ratifying, amplifying or modifying these demarcations as required by national interest.
[…]
ARTICLE 4.- Protection of and control is hereby declared over all the seas within the perimeter formed by the coasts and the mathematical parallel projected into the sea at a distance of 200 nautical miles from the Costa Rican continental coasts. With regard to Costa Rican islands, the demarcation shall be measured indicating a maritime zone contiguous to the coasts of these [islands], projected parallel to them at a distance of 200 nautical miles around their coasts.
[…]
Annex 104
675
676
Annex 105
Honduran Decree No. 25 of 28 January 1950
Official Journal of the Republic of Honduras, 22 January 1951
677
678
Annex 105
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS
TEGUCIGALPA, D.C., HONDURAS, MONDAY 22 JANUARY 1951
[…]
DECREE No. 25
[…]
WHEREAS: It has already been recognized by the Doctrine and established in International Law that this platform legally belongs to riparian States, which have the right to proclaim their sovereignty over it and the waters above it, as demonstrated by the declaration of the President of the United States of America of 28 September 1945, [the] declaration of the President of the United Mexican States of 29 October 1945, [the] declaration of the President of the Argentine Republic of 11 October 1946, [the] declaration of the President of the Republic of Chile of 23 June 1947, [the] declaration of the President of the Republic of Peru of 1 August 1947, and Decree-Law of the Founding Junta of the Second Republic – of Costa Rica – of 27 July 1948.
[…]
Annex 105
679
680
Annex 105
Annex 106
United States Department of State, Memorandum of Conversation of 2 May 1955 entitled “Marginal Seas Conflict with Ecuador”
National Archives and Records Administration of the United States
681
682
Annex 106
Annex 106
683
684
Annex 107
Note No. 7811 2006/GM of 17 February 2006 from the Ecuadorean Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs
P. Goyes Arroyo, Límite Marítimo: Ecuador-Perú, 2007
685
686
Annex 107
NOTE No. 7811 2006/GM (ECUADOR)
Quito, 17 February 2006
Minister and friend,
I refer to your Note RE (AAM) No. 6/1 of 26 January 2006, through which the government of Peru reaffirms its respect for the 1952 Declaration of Santiago and the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone, although it states that these do not constitute maritime delimitation agreements so as to conclude that their absence prompts the conclusion of such treaties in order to avoid the emergence of a controversy.
[…]
Although I agree that contemporary international law recommends the conclusion of treaties when none exist, thereby favouring legal security, this assertion is not applicable to the boundary situation between Ecuador and Peru. The Ecuador-Peru maritime frontier [relies on] international boundary instruments which, apart from [being] clear, do not require any interpretation whatsoever. The 1952 Declaration of Santiago – particularly its article IV – and the 1954 Agreement of Lima indicate the scope of jurisdiction [autoridad] of the two countries. The terms frontier, jurisdiction and sovereignty have an undeniable connotation which indicates from where and up to where each State exercises its rights.
[…]
Annex 107
687
688
Annex 107
On the basis of the international Agreements which determine its boundaries, Ecuador has exercised continuous and uninterrupted sovereignty and jurisdiction over its territorial sea and within the maritime dominion zone starting from the parallel which coordinate is 3º 23' 33.96'' LS. This exercise has never been questioned, nor disputed.
The Conventions which define the maritime delimitation between Ecuador and Peru, which use the parallel which determines the frontier, were freely and voluntarily negotiated and drew inspiration from a legislative act of Peru of 1947, among others.
[…]
Francisco Carrión Mena
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Annex 107
689
690
Annex 108
Press Release No. 073 of 7 February 2008 issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
691
Ecuador, Ministerio de Relaciones ExterioresBOLETÍN DE PRENSA No. 073Quito, 07 de Febrero del 2008ECUADOR REITERA EXISTENCIA DE LÍMITES MARÍTIMOS CON PERÚCon relación a las declaraciones a la prensa del Canciller del Perú José García Belaunde, quien el 31 deenero sostuvo que la Declaración de Santiago de 1952 􀂳establece claramente un criterio, (más) no esun tratado de límites􀂴y sugirió la posibilidad de negociar un tratado de límites marítimos con elEcuador, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Ecuador informó que ha comunicado a la Cancilleríaperuana la inconformidad del Ecuador con las expresiones del Ministro García Belaunde, puesto que noconcuerdan con la realidad jurídica que sustenta la delimitación marítima entre Ecuador y Perú.La Cancillería ecuatoriana recordó que la Declaración de Santiago de 1952 y el Convenio sobre la ZonaEspecial Fronteriza Marítima de 1954 son tratados internacionales vigentes que determinan en derechola línea de frontera marítima binacional, en el paralelo 03º23􀂶33.96􀂴Latitud Sur. Los límites marítimosentre Ecuador y Perú se sustentan, por tanto, en instrumentos jurídicos y no en 􀂳criterios􀂴que puedenmutar por diversas causas, incluso de naturaleza subjetiva.Cabe mencionar que el Ecuador ha ejercido jurisdicción y soberanía continuas e ininterrumpidas apartir de la línea de frontera marítima vigente. En reiterados pronunciamientos oficiales, queconcuerdan con lo estipulado en el Acta de Brasilia de 1998, el Perú ha reconocido claramente que noexisten temas limítrofes marítimos pendientes con el Ecuador. La expresión más reciente en estesentido provino del Presidente del Perú Alan García, durante el último encuentro de Jefes de Estado yGabinetes Binacionales en Tumbes.En razón de la vigencia de hecho y de derecho de los tratados de 1952 y 1954, válidamente celebradoscon arreglo al Derecho Internacional, la Cancillería ecuatoriana reiteró que el Ecuador no considera quehaya temas de delimitación pendientes con el Perú y, por tanto, no hay fundamentos para negociar osuscribir un nuevo instrumento para determinar la frontera marítima con el Perú.Page1 of1Ecuador, Ministerio de Relaciones Exterioreshttp://692
Annex 108
PRESS RELEASE No. 073
Quito, 7 February 2008
ECUADOR REITERATES THE EXISTENCE OF MARITIME BOUNDARIES WITH PERU
With regard to the statements to the press by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, José García Belaunde, who on 31 January affirmed that the Declaration of Santiago of 1952 “clearly establishes a criterion, (but) is not a boundary treaty” and suggested the possibility of negotiating a maritime boundary treaty with Ecuador, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador reported that it has conveyed to the Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs the dissatisfaction of Ecuador with the statements of Minister García Belaunde, as they do not coincide with the legal reality which is the basis for the maritime delimitation between Ecuador and Peru.
The Ecuadorean Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago and the 1954 Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone are international treaties in force which determine as a matter of law the bilateral maritime frontier line at the parallel 03º23'33.96'' Latitude South. The maritime boundaries between Ecuador and Peru are based, thus, on legal instruments and not on “criteria” which can change for several reasons, including those of a subjective nature.
It is noteworthy that Ecuador has exercised continuous and uninterrupted jurisdiction and sovereignty from the line of the maritime frontier in force. In numerous official statements, which correspond to the provision in the Act of Brasilia of 1998, Peru has clearly recognized that there are no maritime boundary issues pending with Ecuador. The latest statement to that effect came from the President of Peru, Alan García, during the last meeting of Heads of State and Bilateral Offices in Tumbes.
By virtue of the factual and legal force of the 1952 and 1954 treaties, validly concluded in accordance with International Law, the Ecuadorean Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterates that Ecuador does not consider that there are outstanding delimitation issues with Peru, and therefore there are no grounds for negotiating or signing a new instrument to determine the maritime frontier with Peru.
Annex 108
693
694
Annex 109
Ecuadorean Presidential Decree No. 450 of 2 August 2010
Registro Oficial No. 259, 18 August 2010
695
696
Annex 109
WHEREAS
Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador establishes that the territory includes the continental and maritime space[s], the adjacent islands, the territorial sea, the Archipelago of Galapagos, the soil, the sub-marine platform, the subsoil and the continental, insular and maritime superjacent space[s], and that their boundaries are those determined by the treaties in force;
In paragraph II of the Declaration on the Maritime Zone of 18 August 1952, signed by the Republics of Ecuador, Chile and Peru, exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the 200 Nautical Miles adjacent to its coast is established;
In article 1 of the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone of 4 December 1954, signed by the Republics of Ecuador, Peru and Chile, a special zone was established, at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast, extending to a breadth of 10 nautical miles on either side of the parallel which constitutes the maritime boundary between the two countries;
Supreme Decree No. 959-A of 28 July 1971, issued by the Presidency of the Republic of Ecuador, determines the straight baselines for the measurement of the Ecuadorean territorial sea and establishes, in its paragraph d), the straight baselines from which the breadth of the Ecuadorean territorial sea must be measured;
In the southern boundary area, according to Supreme Decree No. 959-A of 28 July 1971, maritime spaces under national sovereignty are measured from the Baseline which goes from Puntilla de Santa Elena in the direction of Cabo Blanco (Peru), up to the intersection with the Geographic Parallel, of coordinates 03º 23' 33.96'' SOUTH, and which constitutes the maritime frontier with the Republic of Ecuador;
In the IVth Meeting of the Ecuador-Peru Permanent Mixed Commission of Frontiers (COMPEFEP) of 24 April 2009, the Bi-national Cartography of the first sector was approved, which goes from (a) the Point at which the Ecuador-Peru land frontier reaches the sea, in the Capones channel, up to (b) the boundary marker Lajas, where the WGS84 geodesic coordinates of the land frontier point are established; from the latter the maritime frontier commences, [at the] Thalweg [of] Boca de Capones 03º 23' 31.650'' SOUTH 80º 18' 49.267'' WEST;
The Civil Code, in its Article 609, establishes the adjacent sea up to a distance of two hundred nautical miles, measured from the most salient points of the Ecuadorean continental coast according to the baseline which will be set by Supreme Decree, [which] is territorial sea under national dominion;
Annex 109
697
698
Annex 109
In conformity with Supreme Decree 959-A, of 28 July 1971, a commission consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Navy and the Military Geographic Institute, has studied the drawing of the outer maritime limits measured from the baselines under the abovementioned Decree, and determined its trajectory, so that each point of the outward limit is at two hundred nautical miles from the closest point on the baseline;
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Commerce and Integration approved, through Ministerial Resolution 0081 of 12 July 2010, Nautical Chart IOA 42, which is available to the citizens on the WEB Site of the Oceanographic Institute of the Navy, INOCAR; and,
In execution of the powers vested in him by paragraphs 1 and 10 of Article 147 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador and Article 11, paragraph a, ch and f of the Statute of the Juridical and Administrative Regime of the Executive Branch,
DECREES:
Article 1.- Ministerial Resolution 0081 of 12 July 2010 and the annex thereto, Nautical Chart IOA 42, is hereby approved and the publication thereof is ordered, which depicts the Ecuador-Peru maritime boundary as well as the outer maritime limit – southern sector – of the Republic of Ecuador, drawn in accordance with article 1 of Supreme Decree 959-A of 28 July 1971 and article 1 of the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone of 4 December 1954.
Article 2.- The present Decree enters into force on the date of its publication in the Official Registry.
Done at the National Palace, in the Metropolitan District of Quito, on 2 August 2010, the date on which we commemorate the Bicentenary of the Sacrifice of the Patriots of 10 August 1809.
[signed]
Rafael Correa Delgado
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
[signed]
Ricardo Patiño Aroca
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, COMMERCE AND INTEGRATION
Annex 109
699
700
Annex 109
DOCUMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHER BODIES
701
702
Annex 110
Institut de Droit International, “Projet de Règlement relatif à la Mer Territoriale en temps de paix”, Session de Paris
Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Vol. 13, 1894-1895
703
704
Annex 110
Annex 110
705
706
Annex 110
Annex 111
League of Nations, “Amended Draft Convention communicated to various Governments by the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, with Questionnaire No. 2, 29 January 1926”, League of Nations document C.196.M.70.1927.V
American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929
707
-- 23 Special Number Am. J. Int’l L. Spec. Sup. 366 1929
708
Annex 111
-- 23 Special Number Am. J. Int’l L. Spec. Sup. 367 1929
Annex 111
709
710
Annex 112
International Law Association, “Draft Convention on Law of Maritime Jurisdiction in Time of Peace, 1926”
American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929
711
-- 23 Special Number Am. J. Int’l L. Spec. Sup. 373 1929
712
Annex 112
-- 23 Special Number Am. J. Int’l L. Spec. Sup. 374 1929
Annex 112
713
-- 23 Special Number Am. J. Int’l L. Spec. Sup. 375 1929
714
Annex 112
Annex 113
American Institute of International Law, “Project No. 10 on ‘National Domain’ submitted to the International Commission of Jurists at Rio de Janeiro”, April 1927
American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929
715
-- 23 Special Number Am. J. Int’l L. Spec. Sup. 370 1929
716
Annex 113
Annex 114
Institut de Droit International, “Projet de Règlement relatif à la Mer Territoriale en temps de paix”, Session de Stockholm
Annuaire d’Institut de Droit International, 1928
717
718
Annex 114
Annex 114
719
720
Annex 114
Annex 115
Draft Convention on Territorial Waters, prepared by the Research in International Law of the Harvard Law School
American Journal of International Law Special Supplement, Vol. 23, 1929
721
722
Annex 115
Annex 115
723
724
Annex 115
Annex 116
United Nations, Summary Record of the 69th meeting of the ILC, 17 July 1950
United Nations document A/CN.4/SR.69
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1950, Vol. I
725
Document:-A/CN.4/SR.69Summary record of the 69th meetingTopic:Law of the sea - régime of the high seasExtract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:-1950,vol. IDownloaded from the web site of the International Law Commission(http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm)Copyright © United Nations
726
Annex 116
Annex 116
727
728
Annex 116
Annex 116
729
730
Annex 117
Inter-American Juridical Committee, “Draft Convention on Territorial Waters and Related Questions”, 30 July 1952
Oceana Publications, Inc., Transmittal and Instruction Sheet for Latin America and the Development of the Law of the Sea, Release 86-1, December 1986
731
732
Annex 117
Annex 117
733
734
Annex 117
Annex 117
735
736
Annex 117
Annex 117
737
738
Annex 117
Annex 117
739
740
Annex 117
Annex 118
United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur to the ILC (4th session of the ILC (1952))
United Nations document A/CN.4/53
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1952, Vol. II
741
742
Annex 118
Annex 118
743
744
Annex 118
Annex 118
745
746
Annex 119
United Nations, Comments by Governments on the draft articles on the continental shelf and related subjects prepared by the ILC at its third Session in 1951 (5th session of the ILC (1953))
United Nations document A/2456, Annex II
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1953, Vol. II
747
Document:- A/2456, Annex II Comments by Governments on the draft articles on the continental shelf and related subjects prepared by the International Law Commission at its third session in 1951 Topic: Law of the sea - régime of the high seas Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1953 , vol. II Downloaded from the web site of the International Law Commission (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/index.htm) Copyright © United Nations
748
Annex 119
Annex 119
749
750
Annex 119
Annex 119
751
752
Annex 119
Annex 120
Resolution VII adopted by the CPPS at the 1954 CPPS Meeting, Santiago
CPPS, Compilación de Acuerdos y Resoluciones del Sistema Marítimo del Pacífico Sur (1952-1969), December 1969
753
754
Annex 120
Conference
or
Meeting
__________
Agreement
or
Resolution
__________
Page
____
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME BOUNDARY
–The parallel is recognized as …..
2 R.
VII
43
[…]
Annex 120
755
756
Annex 120
VII*
THE IInd ORDINARY MEETING OF THE PERMANENT COMMISSION OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC
Experience has shown that innocent and inadvertent violations of the maritime frontier between adjacent 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 produces ill-feeling in the fishermen and friction between the countries concerned, which may affect adversely the spirit of cooperation and unity which should at all times prevail among the countries signatories to the instruments signed at Santiago.
In order to avoid the occurrence of such unintentional infringements, the consequences of which affect principally the fishermen, the Technical Commission recommends:
1st) To create a neutral zone at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast, extending to a breadth of 10 nautical miles on either side of the parallel which constitutes the maritime boundary between the two countries.
2nd) The accidental presence in the said zone of vessels 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 by the Maritime Police to be 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.
3rd) Fishing or hunting within the zone of 12 nautical mile from the coast in this Neutral Zone shall be exclusively reserved to the nationals of each country.
[…]
* This agreement was substituted by the “Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone” signed at the IInd Conference, Lima, December 1954 and inserted in the two editions of the compilation of “Agreements and other Documents”, published by the Secretariat-General, in Lima, in January 1967 and December 1968.
Annex 120
757
758
Annex 121
United Nations, Report of the ILC to the United Nations General Assembly (17th session of the ILC (1966)), Commentary to Draft Article 2 on the Law of Treaties
United Nations document A/6309/Rev.1
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1966, Vol. II
759
760
Annex 121
Annex 121
761
762
Annex 121
Annex 121
763
764
Annex 122
Foreword by Dr. García Sayán, Secretary-General of the CPPS, Compilación de Acuerdos y Resoluciones del Sistema Marítimo del Pacífico Sur (1952-1969), 1969
765
766
Annex 122
FOREWORD
For a long time, it has been considered necessary to have a collection with an index by subject of the series of resolutions or agreements adopted in the ordinary meetings of the Permanent Commission and in the extraordinary conferences and other special meetings of the maritime system of the South Pacific from its establishment in 1952 by Chile, Ecuador and Peru on the basis of the so-called “Declaration of Santiago”. While agreements, regulations, organic statutes or other acts subject to ratification or approval pursuant to the respective constitutional or administrative rules of each of the three countries had been compiled by the Secretariat-General in two editions published in January 1967 and in December 1968, the agreements or resolutions which were not of that nature were simply registered in the final Minutes of the meetings at which they were adopted. Some of these Minutes were filed as loose sheets, as the relevant documents of each meeting started only being edited in mimeographed and bound brochures in 1961.
Some of these resolutions or agreements – about 170 – were to address specific circumstances; others were already completed or had fallen into desuetude or became inoperative as a consequence of supervening developments within the system. Nonetheless, a large number of them are of a permanent nature or remain in force. Given that finding the relevant texts may be difficult, since the documents in which they are recorded have been sold out, there is a risk that they cannot be found at a given moment, although these agreements and resolutions may be of a binding nature, pursuant to the 1952 Agreement relating to the organization of the Permanent Commission, which has been ratified by the three countries, in the part which reads as follows:
“4.- The resolutions taken by the Permanent Commission shall be valid and binding in each of the signatory countries, from the date of their adoption, except for those which are contested by any of the parties within a time-limit of 90 days; in such cases the contested decision or decisions shall not apply in the country concerned so long as it maintains its dejection [sic]. For the purposes of the aforementioned time-limit, it shall be understood that the Governments are notified from the date of the adoption of a decision by virtue of the presence of their respective delegates. In the event that the representatives of a country are absent, that country shall be notified in writing of the decisions adopted through the diplomatic representative accredited to the country which is the headquarters of the Commission.”
Annex 122
767
In view of the foregoing, and in order to gather, in an orderly and chronological manner, in a single volume, the resolutions and agreements adopted to date, it was proposed that the Secretariat-General carry out the compilation of the abovementioned [resolutions and agreements] to offer it as a working and information document to the XIth ordinary meeting of the Permanent Commission.
[...]
768
Annex 122
Annex 123
Report of the Ad hoc Joint IHO/IMCO Committee on Promulgation of Radio Navigational Warnings, 1st session, document PRNW I/7, 31 May 1973
Archives of the International Maritime Organization
769
770
Annex 123
Annex 123
771
772
Annex 123
Annex 123
773
774
Annex 123
Annex 124
United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, Vol. V, 1973
United Nations document SC.II/WG/Paper No. 4, Territorial Sea, 1973
General Assembly Official Records: Twenty-Eight Session Supplement No. 21 (A/9021), United Nations, 1973
775
776
Annex 124
Annex 124
777
778
Annex 125
IMCO, Sub-Committee on Radiocommunications — 15th session, Agenda item 7: International Co-ordination of Promulgating Navigational Warnings to Shipping — Communication Aspects: Report of the Working Group on Radio Navigational Warnings, document COM XV/WP.11, 18 September 1975
Archives of the International Maritime Organization
779
780
Annex 125
Annex 125
781
782
Annex 125
Annex 126
IMCO, Group of Experts on Search and Rescue - 5th session: Report to the Maritime Safety Committee, document SAR V/6, 15 June 1977
Archives of the International Maritime Organization
783
784
Annex 126
Annex 126
785
786
Annex 126
Annex 127
IMCO, Assembly - 10th session, Committee II, Report of Committee II to the Plenary of the Assembly at its 10th session, document A X/C.2/2, 14 November 1977
Archives of the International Maritime Organization
787
788
Annex 127
Annex 127
789
790
Annex 128
Plan for the Establishment of a World-Wide Navigational Warning Service, adopted by IMO Assembly Resolution A. 381(X), 14 November 1977
Archives of the International Maritime Organization
791
792
Annex 128
Annex 128
793
794
Annex 128
Annex 128
795
796
Annex 129
J. M. Bákula, Secretary-General, Evaluación de los Convenios de la CPPS, May 1978
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile
797
798
Annex 129
Annex 129
799
800
Annex 129
Annex 129
801
802
Annex 129
Annex 129
803
804
Annex 129
Annex 129
805
806
Annex 129
ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL TEXTS IN FORCE
1. Declaration of Santiago (“Declaration on the Maritime Zone”), of 18 August 1952.
This Declaration which fixed the exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over a maritime zone of 200 nautical miles, has become the fundamental pillar of the international policy of the governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru. Hence, it retains its full international effect.
[…]
Annex 129
807
808
Annex 129
Annex 129
809
810
Annex 129
Annex 129
811
812
Annex 129
Annex 129
813
814
Annex 129
7. Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone, of 4 December 1954.
For the purposes of preventing innocent and inadvertent violations of the maritime frontiers, the contracting countries establish a special zone at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the coast, extending to a breadth of 10 nautical miles on either side of the parallel which constitutes the maritime boundary between the two countries.
The accidental presence of vessels of any of the neighbouring countries in the abovementioned zone shall not be considered as a violation of the waters of the maritime zone, without implying recognition of fishing or hunting rights therein. Fishing or hunting in the 12-nautical-mile zone is exclusively reserved to nationals of each country.
This agreement will not require any modification. That it is in force, in the terms in which it is drawn up, contributes to the avoidance of incidents between the three contracting governments: Chile, Ecuador and Peru.
[…]
Lima, May 1978
[signed]
Ambassador Juan Miguel Bákula
Secretary-General
Annex 129
815
816
Annex 130
United Nations Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, The Law of the Sea – Maritime Boundary Agreements (1970-1984), 1987
817
818
Annex 130
Annex 130
819
820
Annex 131
CPPS, Publicación de la Secretaría General, 1999
821
822
Annex 131
AGREEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL POLICIES
[...]
The first [agreement] was signed in Chile on 18 August 1952, during the First Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific. It was called “Declaration on the Maritime Zone”, although it is better known as the “Santiago Declaration”. This agreement established exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal state over a 200-mile extension adjacent to its coast.
[…]
Two years later, in Lima, the CPPS approved the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone. Within the framework of this agreement, a special maritime zone 10 miles wide on either side of the parallel was established. This zone constitutes the maritime boundary between the countries and beyond the first 12 miles from the coast (which are reserved, exclusively, for nationals of
each country) where the accidental presence of vessels of the neighbouring country is not considered a violation of the maritime zone.
Annex 131
823
824
Annex 132
United Nations, Communication M.Z.N.37.2000.LOS (Maritime Zone Notification) from the Secretary-General of the United Nations entitled “Deposit by Chile of charts showing normal and straight baselines, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf”, 29 September 2000
Archives of the United Nations
825
826
Annex 132
Annex 133
IMO, Global SAR Plan Containing Information on the Current Availability of SAR Services, 22 March 2005
Document SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.2, 22 March 2005, Annex 2
Website of the International Maritime Organization
827
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
828
Annex 133
                                                                    
Annex 133
829
                                                                                                                                                                                                   830
Annex 133
                                                                                                                                                      Annex 133
831
                                                                                                                                                   832
Annex 133
Annex 134
United Nations, Eighth Report on Unilateral Acts of States by Mr V. Rodríguez Cedeño, Special Rapporteur, 26 May 2005
United Nations document A/CN.4/557
Website of the International Law Commission
833
United NationsA/CN.4/557General AssemblyDistr.: General26 May 2005EnglishOriginal: Spanish05-36596 (E) 230605 300605*0536596*International Law CommissionFifty-seventh sessionGeneva, 2 May-3 June and 11 July-5 August 2005Eighth report on unilateral acts of StatesBy Víctor Rodríguez Cedeño, Special RapporteurContentsParagraphsPageIntroduction..........................................................1–122I.Consideration of certain acts............................................13–1675A.Note dated 22 November 1952 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs ofColombia........................................................13–355B.Declaration of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba concerning thesupply of vaccines to the Eastern Republic of Uruguay..................36–4310C.Jordan’s waiver of claims to the West Bank territories...................44–5411D.The Egyptian declaration of 24 April 1957.............................55–6912E.Statements made by the Government of France concerning the suspension ofnuclear tests in the South Pacific.....................................70–8315F.Protests by the Russian Federation against Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan....84–10518G.Statements made by nuclear-weapon States............................106–11520H.Ihlen Declaration of 22 July 1919....................................116–12621I.Truman Proclamation of 28 September 1945...........................127–13723J.Statements concerning the United Nations and its staff members (taxexemptions and privileges)..........................................138–15625K.Conduct of Thailand and Cambodia with reference to the Temple of PreahVihear case......................................................157–16729II.Conclusions that can be drawn from the statements analysed..................168–20832
834
Annex 134
2A/CN.4/557Introduction1.In his 2004 report1 the Special Rapporteur presented a number of examples toshow the practice of States with regard to unilateral acts. Not all of them, as statedin the report, were unilateral acts in the strict sense of the term, but references toand consideration of them remained highly relevant nonetheless. The InternationalLaw Commission considered the report, expressed a favourable opinion of theprogress made on the topic, and created, in order to proceed with work on the topic,a Working Group chaired by Mr. Alain Pellet, which considered the proposals of theSpecial Rapporteur.2 In the course of four sessions, the Working Group consideredsome of the cases presented by the Special Rapporteur and agreed that some of themwould be analysed in accordance with the specific framework to be adopted on thatoccasion, and to which reference is made below.2.Some members of the Working Group provided assistance to the SpecialRapporteur by sending information on specific cases. The contributions ofMr. Brownlie, Mr. Chee, Mr. Daoudi, Mr. Kolodkin, Mr. Matheson, Mr. OperttiBadan and Mr. Pellet are highly appreciated; they made very interesting and usefulcontributions which formed the basis of the research conducted this year.3.The topic of unilateral acts was broached in the Sixth Committee at the fifty-ninth session. During that debate, various delegations reaffirmed their view ofunilateral acts as a source of international obligations.3 It was emphasized that inthe following stage a definition of unilateral acts should be developed based on theoperative text adopted by the Working Group in 2003. Furthermore, an effort shouldbe made to formulate a number of general rules applicable to all unilateral acts anddeclarations considered by the Special Rapporteur in the light of State practice, witha view to promoting the stability and predictability of their mutual relations.4 TheCommission should offer a clear definition of unilateral acts of States capable ofproducing legal effects, with sufficient flexibility to leave States a timely margin formanoeuvre in order to be able to carry out their political acts.5 The delegationsnoted that it would be useful to proceed with a study of the evolution of differentacts and declarations,6 especially as regards their author, their form, the subjectiveelements they contain, their revocability and validity, and the reactions of thirdStates.7 The importance accorded to State practice was a step towards enablingprogress to be made in the study of the topic.8__________________1 A/CN.4/542.2Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/59/10),pp. 260-261.3 See GA/L/3267 and GA/L/3268.4 See, inter alia, the views of the representative of Chile (GA/L/3266), Guatemala (GA/L/3267),Australia (GA/L/3268) and Romania (ibid.)5 See, in that connection, the views of the representative of Germany (GA/L/3267), China (ibid.),Canada (ibid.), Malaysia (GA/L/3268), Australia (ibid.) and Sierra Leone (ibid.).6 “The lifespan of unilateral acts”, as highlighted, for example, by Mr. D. Momtaz during thedebates at the previous session of the Commission in July 2004.7 See, inter alia, the views of the representative of China (GA/L/3267), Canada (ibid.), Portugal(ibid.), Italy (ibid.), Japan (GA/L/3268) and Malaysia (ibid.).8 See, inter alia, the views of Portugal (GA/L/3267), Spain (ibid.), Italy (ibid.) and Australia(GA/L/3268).
Annex 134
835
3A/CN.4/5574.Certain delegations stressed in the discussions that a study and supplementaryanalysis of State practice in that area should be carried out for the purpose ofestablishing a classification of unilateral acts and their legal effects anddistinguishing clearly among the different categories of such acts.95.Many delegations supported the Commission’s decision to create an open-ended working group to study a number of cases. With regard to whether or not so-called political acts should be included, the lack of a clear boundary between legaland political acts was mentioned. Some political acts could actually produce legaleffects. One classification proposed, for example, was the distinction between actswhich contribute to the development of customary norms of international law, actswhich create specific legal obligations, and acts which produce other effects underinternational law. The view was expressed that a classification of this type mighthelp the Special Rapporteur to distinguish unilateral acts relevant to theCommission’s study and thus determine the main items for reflection. It was alsostressed that one of the greatest obstacles to the classification effort was the fact thatan act could belong to several of the categories mentioned in the seventh report atthe same time and that, accordingly, the classification was not ideal.106.Another point raised during the discussion relates to the competence ofpersons authorized to formulate unilateral acts on behalf of the State, and the doubtsthat have arisen with regard to the nature and form of such acts; it is not clear, forexample, whether the declarations of a State, its conduct or even national lawconstitute unilateral acts in the sense with which the Commission is concerned. Inorder to define clearly the legal nature of such acts, the Commission should takeinto account not only the objective elements of such unilateral acts, but also theirsubjective elements, such as the intention of the States in question, an aspect whichis difficult to grasp.11 The criteria of validity of unilateral acts was also mentionedas an issue that should be taken into account in the analysis of these acts.127.Other delegations believed that the preparation of draft articles on the topicwas premature at the current stage of the work. There was a need for an in-depth andmore detailed investigation. The necessary differentiation between unilateral acts ofa legal character and unilateral acts which do not produce legal effects isundoubtedly one of the more complex aspects of the topic.8.It is interesting to note that the positions outlined in the Sixth Committee tosome extent reflect the positions already outlined in the Commission itself. Oneconclusion should be emphasized: regardless of the doubts, or of scepticism withregard to the possibility of final codification of the topic, the common viewunderlying the debates at the most recent session was that a deeper and moredetailed investigation was necessary, especially with regard to the practice of States.This approach could serve as a guideline for future work, which, in accordance withthe outline contained in the seventh report, would focus on the study of Statepractice.__________________9 See, inter alia, the views of Germany (GA/L/3267), Canada (ibid.), Guatemala (ibid.) andMalaysia (GA/L/3268).10 See, inter alia, the views of Germany (GA/L/3267), Canada (ibid.), Guatemala (ibid.) andMalaysia (GA/L/3268).11 See, inter alia, the views of Australia (GA/L/3268), Japan (ibid.) and Malaysia (ibid.).12 See, for example, Malaysia’s view (GA/L/3268).
836
Annex 134
4A/CN.4/5579.On the basis of the suggestions made by the Commission and by States in theSixth Committee, this report presents the consideration of certain acts which havebeen considered relevant for a more detailed study of practice relating to these acts(section II) and the conclusions which, in the view of the Special Rapporteur, can bedrawn from this practice. These conclusions can facilitate the establishment ofcommon elements and, accordingly, future efforts to define a set of guidelinesrelating to the functioning of these legal acts (section III).10.It should also be noted that the report considers only unilateral legal acts in thestrict sense of the term, in accordance with the discussions in the Commission andsome types of conduct which, without being acts of that nature, can produce similareffects. In that regard we should recall, merely as a basic reference, that theInternational Court of Justice has in various cases considered certain types ofunilateral State conduct which produce or may produce legal effects.1311.In accordance with the discussions held last year in the Commission and theWorking Group established at that time, it was agreed to consider in detail thefollowing acts: note dated 22 November 1952 from the Minister for Foreign Affairsof Colombia; statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba relating to thesupply of vaccines to the Eastern Republic of Uruguay; waiver by Jordan of claimsto the territories of the West Bank; statement by Egypt of 24 April 1957; statementsby the Government of France concerning the suspension of nuclear tests in theSouth Pacific; protests by the Russian Federation addressed to Turkmenistan andAzerbaijan; statements made by the nuclear-weapon States; Ihlen Declaration of22 July 1919; Truman Proclamation of 28 September 1945. The statements or actsof the Swiss Government authorities addressed to an international organization werealso considered, i.e., statements relating to the United Nations and its staff (taxexemptions and privileges). Lastly, the various types of conduct of two States in thecontext of a case before the International Court of Justice were considered, i.e., thepositions of Cambodia and Thailand in the Temple of Preah Vihear case.12.As indicated earlier, these statements were considered on the basis of thegeneral guidelines agreed last year in the Working Group, which, as will be recalled,proposed that the consideration of such acts or statements should include thefollowing: date; competence of the author or organ; form; content; context andcircumstances; objectives sought; addressees; reactions of the addressees; reactionsof third parties; basis; application; modification; termination/revocation; legalscope; decision of a judge or an arbiter; comments and bibliography.14__________________13 See the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case (I.C.J. Reports 1951, pp. 138 et seq.); Case concerningthe Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (I.C.J. Reports 1960,pp. 192, 209 and 213); Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (I.C.J. Reports1960, p. 39); Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 21); Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya case (I.C.J. Reports 1982, pp. 65-67); Gulf of Maine case (I.C.J.Reports 1984, pp. 303 et seq.); Case concerning the Burkina Faso/Mali territorial dispute(I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 554 et seq.); and Case concerning the land, island and maritime frontierdispute (I.C.J. Reports 1992, pp. 408, 422 et seq. and 559 et seq.).14 See Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-sixth session (3 May-4 June and 5 July-6 August 2004), A/59/10, pp. 260-261, where reference is made to the conclusions of theWorking Group.
Annex 134
837
23A/CN.4/557I.Truman Proclamation of 28 September 194571127.Ninth, we will examine the declaration of 28 September 1945 made by thePresident of the United States, Harry S. Truman, issued as a PresidentialProclamation and addressed to the international community.128.The Proclamation states that:“... it is the view of the Government of the United States that the exercise ofjurisdiction over the natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of thecontinental shelf by the contiguous nation is reasonable and just, since theeffectiveness of measures to utilize or conserve these resources would becontingent upon cooperation and protection from the shore, since thecontinental shelf may be regarded as an extension of the land mass of thecoastal nation and thus naturally appurtenant to it, since these resourcesfrequently form a seaward extension of a pool or deposit lying within theterritory, and since self-protection compels the coastal nation to keep closewatch over activities off its shores which are of the nature necessary forutilization of these resources ...”.The Proclamation goes on to say that:“Having concern for the urgency of conserving and prudently utilizing itsnatural resources, the Government of the United States regards the naturalresources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf beneath the highseas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to theUnited States, subject to its jurisdiction and control. In cases where thecontinental shelf extends to the shores of another State, or is shared with anadjacent State, the boundary shall be determined by the United States and theState concerned in accordance with equitable principles. The character as highseas of the waters above the continental shelf and the right to their free andunimpeded navigation are in no way thus affected ...”.129.The Proclamation deals with the management and exploitation of the resourcesof the seabed beneath the territorial sea, by the coastal State, a right accepted at thebeginning of the twentieth century. By 1945 it was clear that the exploitation of themineral resources of the continental shelf under the high seas — particularlypetroleum resources — was not feasible on a significant scale, and in particular theUnited States was actively interested in offshore oil exploitation in the Gulf ofMexico and elsewhere.130.The aim of the United States in issuing the Truman Proclamation was toestablish its jurisdiction and control over the adjacent seabed of the continentalshelf, and to establish that the sharing of the seabed with neighbouring States wouldbe determined by mutual agreement in accordance with “equitable principles”. TheProclamation was expressly not intended to affect the legal status of the high seasabove the shelf and the right to “free and unimpeded navigation” in those waters.131.Reaction to the Proclamation came from certain States, even though it wasconsidered by the International Law Commission when it prepared the draftconventions on the law of the sea and by the International Court of Justice, which__________________71 Based on the contribution of Mr. M. Matheson.
838
Annex 134
24A/CN.4/557refers to it in its Judgment of 1969 concerning the North Sea continental shelf,which we will examine in due course.132.Among the States which reacted was Mexico, a country adjacent to the UnitedStates, which issued a presidential declaration one month later, incorporating itscontinental shelf into its national territory.133.Within a short time, the principle contained in the Truman Proclamationbecame widely accepted. In 1951, the International Law Commission included aprovision in its draft articles on the law of the sea which stipulated that “thecontinental shelf is subject to the exercise by the coastal State of control andjurisdiction for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources”.Article 2 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf states that “the coastalState exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose ofexploring it and exploiting its natural resources”.134.In its judgment in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the InternationalCourt of Justice also refers to the Truman Proclamation:72“A review of the genesis and development of the equidistance method ofdelimitation can only serve to confirm the foregoing conclusion. Such a reviewmay appropriately start with the instrument, generally known as the ‘TrumanProclamation’, issued by the Government of the United States on28 September 1945. Although this instrument was not the first or only one tohave appeared, it has in the opinion of the Court a special status. Previously,various theories as to the nature and extent of the rights relative to orexercisable over the continental shelf had been advanced by jurists, publicistsand technicians. The Truman Proclamation, however, soon came to beregarded as the starting point of the positive law on the subject, and the chiefdoctrine it enunciated, namely that of the coastal State as having an original,natural, and exclusive (in short a vested) right to the continental shelf off itsshores, came to prevail over all others, being now reflected in Article 2 of the1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. With regard to thedelimitation of lateral boundaries between the continental shelves of adjacentStates, a matter which had given rise to some consideration on the technical,but very little on the juristic level, the Truman Proclamation stated that suchboundaries ‘shall be determined by the United States and the State concernedin accordance with equitable principles’. These two concepts, of delimitationby mutual agreement and delimitation in accordance with equitable principles,have underlain all the subsequent history of the subject. They were reflected invarious other State proclamations of the period, and after, and in the late workon the subject.”73The Court goes on to say that:“... [T]his régime furnishes an example of a legal theory derived from aparticular source that has secured a general following. As the Court hasrecalled in the first part of its Judgment, it was the Truman Proclamation of__________________72I.C.J. Reports 1969, paras. 47 and 100.73I.C.J. Reports 1969, pp. 33-34, para. 47
Annex 134
839
25A/CN.4/55728 September 1945 which was at the origin of the theory, whose specialfeatures reflect that origin ...”.74135.The Proclamation does not have a specific basis, apart from theaforementioned policies.136.The Truman Proclamation was expanded upon in an executive order from thePresident, issued the same day, which places the natural resources of the adjacentcontinental shelf under the jurisdiction and control of the United States. TheProclamation was later confirmed and complemented by the adoption of the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Act by the Congress of the United States.137.The Proclamation was not amended, revoked or denounced.J.Statements concerning the United Nations and its staff members(tax exemptions and privileges)138.Unlike most of the cases analysed in this report, in this tenth example to beconsidered the addressee is the United Nations (or other international organizationsconnected with it, such as specialized agencies and their staff members). This isperhaps the feature that distinguishes this unilateral act (consisting of a linked seriesof statements) from the other cases presented.75139.First of all, it should be noted that, since the various statements were spreadout over time and were fairly similar in content, there are a number of dates to keepin mind when examining the content of the obligations that Switzerland claimed toassume.140.The first of these dates is in April 1946, when a statement was made by aCouncillor of State of the Canton of Geneva as a member of the Swiss delegation inthe negotiations leading to the adoption of the Convention on the Privileges andImmunities of the United Nations.141.The second date is 5 August 1946, when the head of the Federal PoliticalDepartment released an official statement to the press.142.Lastly, on 28 July 1955, nine years later, the latter statement was reiterated bythe Swiss Federal Council in its message to the Federal Assembly. Hence, thesethree dates will help in determining the existence and content of the obligationassumed by Switzerland.143.It will also be significant to identify the authors or organs who issued thosestatements and to determine whether they were competent to bind the State. Thethree acts considered will be analysed from a dual perspective: from theinternational perspective, considering by way of analogy the capacity to concludeinternational treaties as defined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesbetween States and International Organizations or between InternationalOrganizations of 21 March 1986, and from the domestic perspective, with referenceto the Constitution of the Swiss Confederation at the time of the events in question.__________________74I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 53, para. 100.75 The analysis of this case was provided by M. I. Torres Cazorla, Professor of International Law atthe University of Málaga.
840
Annex 134
32A/CN.4/557166.It is worth stressing another aspect that the Court noted, namely, that in thiscontext the concepts of estoppel or acquiescence mingle with the general rule ofrecourse to the subsequent practice of the parties as a means of interpretation of atreaty.97167.The Court pointed out in that regard:“... Thailand contends that since 1908, and at any rate up to her own 1934-1935 survey, she believed that the map line and watershed line coincided, andtherefore that if she accepted the map line, she did so only in that belief. It isevident that such a contention would be quite inconsistent with Thailand’sequally strongly advanced contention that these acts in the concrete exercise ofsovereignty evidenced her belief that she had sovereignty over the Templearea: for if Thailand was truly under a misapprehension about the Annex Iline — if she really believed it indicated the correct watershed line — then shemust have believed that, on the basis of the map and her acceptance of it, theTemple area lay rightfully in Cambodia. If she had ... accepted the Annex Imap only because she thought it was correct — then her acts on the groundwould have to be regarded as deliberate violations of the sovereignty which(on the basis of the assumptions above stated) she must be presumed to havethought Cambodia to possess. The conclusion is that Thailand cannot allegethat she was under any misapprehension in accepting the Annex I line, for thisis wholly inconsistent with the reason she gives for her acts on the ground,namely that she believed herself to possess sovereignty in this area.”98II.Conclusions that can be drawn from the statementsanalysed168.From the statements, acts and conduct examined above — which, of course,provide only a few examples of State practice, analysed in detail in accordance withthe criteria established by the Commission at its 2004 session — a few conclusionscan be drawn that may make it possible to formulate some basic principles derivedfrom this practice. As will be seen, some of these principles are based on draftarticles submitted by the Special Rapporteur in earlier reports and on some of theguidelines established by the Working Group at its meetings. Some of the ideaswhich emerge from the analysis concern the formulation of acts and, in particular,their definition, the capacity of the State and the capacity of the organ making thestatement.169.It should first be noted that the examples given are unilateral acts expressed invery different ways, including official notes, public declarations, presidentialproclamations, political speeches and even conduct signifying acceptance oracquiescence, which will be discussed separately at the end of this section.170.The first conclusion that can be drawn is that the form is relativelyunimportant in determining whether we are dealing with a unilateral legal act of thetype in which the Commission is interested — in other words, an act that canproduce legal effects on its own without the need for its acceptance, or for any other__________________97 See, in this regard, J. P. Cot, AFDI (1962), pp. 235-240, and H. Thirlway, “The Law andProcedure of the International Court of Justice”, BYBIL, vol. 60 (1989), pp. 47-49.98I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 33.
Annex 134
841
33A/CN.4/557reaction on the part of the addressee, as the International Court of Justiceestablished in the Nuclear Tests case (a decision discussed in previous reports).However, it may still be considered that the formality of the act has a role to play indetermining the intent of its author. An oral statement made in an informal contextmay be less clear, in that regard, than an oral statement made before an internationalbody or than a diplomatic note, which is of course drafted in a more formal mannerand is therefore clearer, since the addressee can have direct access to its content.The form can have an impact insofar as a statement may be considered to producelegal effects.171.Second, it can be seen that these are acts formulated by States: Colombia,Cuba, Egypt, France, Jordan, Norway, the Russian Federation, Switzerland and theUnited States. The addressee of these acts also varies widely: they may be addressedto other States, the international community, an entity which has not yet beenconsolidated as a State (a State in status nascendi) or an international organization.172.It may be inferred from this that, as in the sphere of the law of treaties, theState is endowed with international capacity — which is intrinsic to it — to commititself or develop legal relations at the international level through unilateral acts. Theprovision relating to the “capacity of the State” to conclude treaties, contained inarticle 6 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, might therefore befully transferable to any legal regime on unilateral acts which may be established.173.The acts considered were addressed to other States; however, in the case of theNuclear Tests case, negative security guarantees, the Truman Proclamation and thewaiver of claims to the West Bank territories, such acts were addressed to theinternational community. It might also be said that the statements concerningnegative security guarantees were formulated erga omnes, within the framework ofinternational bodies and in the context of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation ofNuclear Weapons.174.It may also be concluded that the act of the State can be addressed not only toanother State but to other entities, as in the case of Jordan’s act and even thedeclarations of the Swiss Federation — subjects of international law, in any case.175.In most cases, these acts have a single origin; in others, however, they arecompound, not single acts. This means that in some cases, the act is formulatedthrough a declaration made by a person who is in principle competent to do so,while in others, it is formulated through several declarations which jointly give riseto its overall content. This is usually highly relevant, especially for the purposes ofinterpreting a unilateral act, its content and the subjective factors associated with theconsent of the State formulating the act to be bound by it.176.A declaration may consist of a single act, as in the case of the IhlenDeclaration, the note from Colombia, the Egyptian declaration, the TrumanProclamation and the protest notes from the Russian Federation. In other cases theact consists of several declarations, as with the declarations by the Frenchauthorities concerning the Nuclear Tests case. And to some extent, although, asstated earlier, they were not identical in content, the declarations of various Swissofficials constitute a single unilateral act.177.Some cases involve diplomatic notes, as with Colombia and the protest notesfrom the Russian Federation; a declaration, as with the French authorities and thenuclear Powers; a presidential proclamation; an official speech, such as that of the
842
Annex 134
34A/CN.4/557King of Jordan and even statements made at meetings of international bodies; andofficial communications, such as the communiqué from the Swiss Federal PoliticalDepartment.178.The acts and declarations considered were formulated on behalf of the State bydifferent authorities and individuals: in the case of the Colombian note and theNorwegian declaration of 22 July 1991, by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs; in thecase of the Truman Proclamation, by a head of State; in the case of the Jordaniandeclaration, by the monarch (head of State); in the case of the Egyptian declaration,by the executive branch; and in the case of the Russian Federation protests, by theMinistry of Foreign Affairs.179.In the case of the most-favoured-nation clause, the act is formulated by a localauthority of the Canton of Geneva and is later confirmed by the FederalGovernment. This might lead us to consider the possibility, already raised inprevious reports, that other persons might be authorized to formulate an act andcommit the State on behalf of which they are acting if such a personal capacity canbe inferred from practice. In the case of the Swiss declarations, a delegate to anegotiating process formulated the act initially, although it would later be confirmedby the Federal Political Department; this does not provide absolute certainty withrespect to such capacity, but rather corroborates or confirms it.180.This issue of authorized persons has an important parallel in the Vienna treatyregime. Thus, the preceding remarks concerning the capacity of the head of State,the head of Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are valid indetermining the persons authorized in the first instance to act at the internationallevel and commit the State through the formulation of a unilateral act.181.This assertion, however, does not necessarily lead to the application mutatismutandis of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Unilateral acts areformulated in a particular manner; it would therefore seem that the rules governingtheir formulation should be more flexible, although those relating to theirinterpretation may be considered more strictly. In addition to the persons authorizedunder international law to act and commit the State which they represent at theinternational level, as recognized in the 1969 Vienna Convention, there may beother persons who are empowered to act in a similar manner if the addresseeconsiders that such a person is, in effect, authorized to do so. This reflects the basisfor consideration of the topic: legal security and mutual confidence in internationalrelations.182.In every case — with the exception of the Truman Proclamation, which is notpart of specific negotiations — we are dealing with declarations linked in some wayto negotiations on a specific issue, such as the declarations made by France, thenuclear Powers and the King of Jordan; the Colombian note of 1952; the protestnotes by the Russian Federation; and the acts of Swiss officials in connection withthe granting of most-favoured-nation status.183.Some of these acts are clearly unilateral, such as the Russian Federation’sprotests and the French statements on the nuclear tests, while others might beconsidered differently, such as the Colombian Government’s note of 22 November1952 and the oral statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway on22 July 1919, which may have elements more closely related to the conventionalframework.
Annex 134
843
35A/CN.4/557184.Colombia’s act might be considered in various ways. First, it might be viewedin the context of bilateral relations and thus simply the result of negotiationsbetween two countries. In that regard, we should note the terms of Venezuela’sreply: “My Government fully agrees with the terms of Your Excellency’s note”.185.This note might also constitute a genuine unilateral act which produces effectsat the time of its formulation, as was clear to Venezuela. This means that, as theInternational Court of Justice held in the Nuclear Tests case, the act would produceeffects without the need for a reply from the Government of Venezuela. The originof the act and its legal effects came into being at the time Venezuela was notified,regardless of its reaction. As we have seen, different opinions, including that of theColombian Government, were presented during the proceedings in the Council ofState.186.The Permanent Court of International Justice considered the Ihlen Declarationto be unilateral, but some scholars see it as part of an agreement between twocountries.187.The Truman Proclamation and the statements made by the French authoritiesconcerning the suspension of nuclear tests might be viewed as unilateral strictosensu since they have been considered to produce legal effects without the need fora reaction from the addressee(s).188.Furthermore, some unilateral declarations may not be considered as having astrictly legal character; this is true, for example, of the statements on negativesecurity guarantees made by the nuclear Powers. These take the form of unilateraldeclarations, but many believe that they are really political in nature. This view isbased on the fact that the authors themselves and the addressees have not beenunanimous in considering them to be legally binding declarations. In this regard, itis noteworthy that the Conference on Disarmament has long proposed to develop anagreement on that issue; this suggests that unilateral declarations are not viewed aslegal in nature but rather, as has been mentioned, as political declarations of intent.189.An important question arises with respect to the validity of the act, itsinvalidation on the grounds that it is contrary to domestic constitutional norms, andthe possibility of its confirmation through subsequent acts. The capacity andcompetence of the organ, two questions which are closely linked but of courseseparate, is another of the most difficult aspects of consideration of the topic.190.With regard to Colombia’s note of 22 November 1952, for example, thequestion of the validity of the act might be raised since boundary issues must besubmitted to Congress for approval. Despite the official’s unquestionable capacity,the specific case, which concerns boundaries and therefore territorial integrity,might require such approval; this relates to the organ’s competence to formulate aunilateral legal act.191.In the case of the public declaration by the King of Jordan, we are dealing withan act prohibited under domestic law. In this particular case, it might be concludedthat the act was confirmed by the Jordanian Government’s subsequent acts, whichwould preclude the possibility of its invalidation.192.In both cases, there appears to have been tacit confirmation of the act, in thefirst case through the Government’s attitude and, in the second, through thepromulgation of several laws.
844
Annex 134
36A/CN.4/557193.Consideration of the acts with which we are concerned involves only actsformulated by States and therefore excludes those of international organizations andthose which may be formulated by other subjects of international law. However, actsformulated by a State and addressed to an international organization are considered,since it is possible for a State to develop unilateral legal relations with subjectsother than a State.194.Another relevant question which arises during the consideration of such acts isthe need to establish the moment at which they produce legal effects. It is assumedthat they can produce such effects as from the time of their formulation without theneed for their acceptance or for any reaction conveying such acceptance, as has beennoted. In the cases considered, it seems difficult to determine the moment at whichan act produces legal effects.195.For example, Colombia’s note of 22 November 1952 seems to have producedeffects from the time it was formulated, although it might also be considered that, defacto, it did not produce effects until the addressee — in this case, the Ambassadorof Venezuela — received it or until receipt of the note was acknowledged. Thiswould, to a great extent, be consistent with consideration of the note as a unilateralactstricto sensu or as an act incorporated into treaty relations.196.The Russian Federation’s protests, if considered as such, could be said to haveproduced an immediate effect inherent in the act of protest — in other words, at thetime they were formulated and brought to the addressee’s attention. The RussianFederation would be viewed as having been obliged to protest — not to remainsilent — when faced with the actions of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. In this case,silence could have provided a basis for establishing acquiescence to the claims madeby these two countries.197.It must be stressed that, despite the apparent intention not to produce legaleffects, such effects are sometimes produced where the circumstances surroundingthe declaration allow the addressee to conclude in good faith that the declaring Statewas bound by its declaration, as the Nuclear Tests case decisions held.198.As for whether the acts considered were modified or revoked, it will be notedthat they have for the most part been maintained as regards their content; thedeclarations by different Swiss authorities may constitute amendments, but thisshould not affect their nature as a single unilateral act.199.In the case of the promise contained in France’s statements, the InternationalCourt of Justice ruled, on the basis of those statements, that France should conductitself in accordance with their content. Thus, the declarations gave rise to clearobligations for France.200.The acts of Jordan and Colombia also have clear, important legal consequencesarising from renunciation and recognition, institutions which have been widelyrecognized and studied in international doctrine.201.In the case of the statements made by the nuclear-weapon States, we aredealing with guarantees which may also produce legal effects if is concluded thatthese declarations are legal and therefore binding on these countries in that respect.This position has been defended by various States before the International Court ofJustice; however, the position taken by the States which formulated the declarations,
Annex 134
845
37A/CN.4/557and their conditional nature, make it impossible to state that they are mandatory inthe absolute sense.202.Only in the cases concerning the conduct of Cambodia and Thailand, theTemple ofPreahVihar case, the Ihlen declaration and France’s statements in thecontext of the Nuclear Tests case have the actions in question been reviewed by aninternational court. Reference was made to the Truman Proclamation in one caseconsidered by the Court, the North Sea Continental Shelf case.203.Lastly, some comments will be made concerning the conduct of Thailand andCambodia, which was considered by the International Court of Justice in the Templeof Preah Vihar case. In that connection it should be noted that, without constitutingunilateral acts within the strict meaning of the term in which the Commission isinterested, such conduct may produce relevant legal effects as the Court found inthis case.204.The Temple of Preah Vihar case shows the extremely close relationshipbetween the various forms of State conduct: estoppel, silence and acquiescence. Asimilar relationship may exist between the effects of the conduct of parties to atreaty. Silence and acquiescence formed the basis of the relations between theparties during the proceedings.205.In a case such as this the relevant issue is not the formulation of a unilateralact, but rather the silence, the passage of time, which may give rise to theassumption that this state of affairs is accepted as such. The absence of protest atthis situation and repeated conduct consistent with this state of affairs is whatproduces, or may produce, legal effects.206.The concern expressed by the members of the Working Group at its 2003meeting, when its conclusions mentioned the need for the Special Rapporteur to takeconduct into account in his future work, is based on the need to make it clear toStates that even their failure to act (especially when they should have expressedopposition) can produce legal effects. There is no question of assimilating suchconduct — whether active or passive — to unilateral acts stricto sensu, but merelyof pointing out its implications.207.This report may serve as a basis for progress in our work on the topic, despiteits complexity. As suggested in the Sixth Committee, the Commission mightconsider adopting a definition of unilateral acts, perhaps accompanied by a “withoutprejudice” clause concerning the unilateral conduct of States, which, whileimportant and capable of producing legal effects similar to unilateral acts, isdifferent in nature.208.After this year’s discussion, the Commission might also consider some of thedraft articles already referred to the Drafting Committee, particularly thoseinvolving issues raised in the preceding paragraphs, separately from the study ofpractice.
846
Annex 134
Annex 135
IMO, Global SAR Plan Containing Information on the Current Availability of SAR Services, 21 April 2006
Document SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.4, 21 April 2006, Annex 2
Website of the International Maritime Organization
847
I:\CIRC\SAR\08\1-Corr-4.doc INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION 4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT LONDON SE1 7SR Telephone: 020 7735 7611 Fax: 020 7587 3210 IMO E Ref. T2-OSS/2.6 SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.4 21 April 2006 GLOBAL SAR PLAN CONTAINING INFORMATION ON THE CURRENT AVAILABILITY OF SAR SERVICES Introduction 1 This circular contains information on the current availability of Search and Rescue (SAR) Services, based on responses received from Member Governments in line with COMSAR/Circ.27, as given in annex 1. 2 Data received from the Member Governments according to the format of new combined SAR.2 and SAR.3 circulars is given in annex 2 and information on Telemedical Maritime Advice Services (TMAS) is given in annex 3. 3 Governments are invited to check the information contained in this circular and inform the Secretariat of any amendments thereto so that they can be included in the next edition of the Global SAR Plan. This circular is issued in loose-leaf format, updated twice a year and available on the IMO website. The pagination on annexes 2 and 3 does not correlate with the previous circulars (SAR.8/Circ.1, SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.1, SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.2 and SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.3), as this particular circular only contains the information provided by the countries highlighted in annex 1. 4 Governments who have not yet responded to the COMSAR/Circ.27, are invited to do so as soon as possible. 5 Any amendments, responses to the COMSAR/Circ.27 and relevant inquiries should be forwarded to: International Maritime Organization 4 Albert Embankment London SE1 7SR United Kingdom Tel : + 44 (0)20 7735-7611 Fax : + 44 (0)20 7587-3210 Website: www.imo.org E-mail: [email protected] 6 Member Governments, ITU, ICAO, WMO, IHO, IMSO and the COSPAS-SARSAT Partners are requested to bring this circular, and the information annexed hereto, to the attention of maritime, aviation, telecommunication, hydrographic and meteorological Authorities, SAR Authorities, Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centres (MRCCs), Aeronautical Rescue Co-ordination Centres (ARCCs), Coast Earth Stations (CESs), Coast Stations (CSs), COSPAS-SARSAT Mission Control Centres (MCCs), hydrographers, shipowners, training institutions and seafarers. ***
848
Annex 135
SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.4 ANNEX 2 DATA FORMAT FOR NEW COMBINED SAR.2 AND SAR.3 CIRCULARS
Annex 135
849
SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.4 ANNEX 2 Page 37 I:\CIRC\SAR\08\1-Corr-4.doc Country: Peru 1 National responsible Authority for Maritime SAR Director General de Capitanías y Guardacostas 2 Date of Submission 02 August 2005 3 Information Provider Director General de Capitanías y Guardacostas 4 SDP (SAR data provider(s))/Type of data Comandancia de Operaciones Guardacostas Tel.: 511 4202020 Fax: 511 4291547 E-mail: [email protected] 5 Name of centre(s): MRCC/MRSC/JRCC/JRSC Comandancia de Operaciones Guardacostas (MRCC) Centro Coordinador de Búsqueda y Rescate Paita (MRSC) 05° 05'.30" S 081° 06'.00" N Centro Coordinador de Búsqueda y Recate Callao (MRSC) 12° 03'.57" S 077° 08'.40" W Centro Coordinador de Búsqueda y Recate Mollendo (MRSC) 17° 01'.45" S 072° 00'.00" W 6 MMSI-call sign-VHF voices call sign 007600125 – OBC – 3 – Callao Radio 7 Landline communications Estación Costera Paita OBY-2: Tel.: 511 073-211670 Fax: 511 073-211670 E-mail: [email protected] Estación Costera Callao OBC-3: Tel.: 511 4299798 Fax: 511 4200177 Telex: +36-26042 E-mail: [email protected] Estación Costera Mollendo OBF-4: Tel.: 511 054 534383 Fax: 511 054 534383 Telex: +36-59655 E-mail: [email protected] 8 Associated CRSs (if needed) 007600125 – OBC – 3 – Callao Radio 850
Annex 135
SAR.8/Circ.1/Corr.4 ANNEX 2 Page 38 I:\CIRC\SAR\08\1-Corr-4.doc Country: Peru (cont.) 9 Associated or nearest Inmarsat LES 10 Associated COSPAS-SARSAT MCC or SPOC PEMCC PERU 11 Associated ARCC (if not a JRCC) PEMCC PERU 12 Arrangements for obtaining telemedical advice Centro Medico Naval "Cirujano Mayor Santiago Tavara" 13 Types of SAR facilities normally available RB / SRG / MRG / MAU / GSU / UIU / DUIU / FFU 14 Limits of the area for which the centre is responsible Latitude: 03° 24'.00 S 18° 21'.00 S Longitud: 120° 00'.00 W, hasta la línea de costa del Perú 15 Remarks - *** Annex 135
851
852
Annex 136
United Nations, Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating legal obligations, with commentaries thereto (58th session of the ILC (2006))
United Nations document A/61/10
Report of the ILC to the United Nations General Assembly (58th Session of the ILC (2006))
853
3712. Any State possesses capacity to undertake legal obligations through unilateral declarations.Commentary Just as “(e)very State possesses capacity to conclude treaties”,928 every State can commit itself through acts whereby it unilaterally undertakes legal obligations under the conditionsindicated in these Guiding Principles. This capacity has been acknowledged by the International Court of Justice.9293. To determine the legal effects of such declarations, it is necessary to take account of their content, of all the factual circumstances in which they were made, and of the reactions to which they gave rise.Commentary (1) The wording of Guiding Principle 3 is also inspired by a passage in the ICJ Judgments in the Nuclear Tests cases;930 allusion is made to this jurisprudence in the Judgments of 22 December 1986 in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali) case931 and of 3 February 2006 in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case.932 In the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua and Frontier Dispute cases, the Court found nothing in the content of the declarations cited or the circumstances in which they were made “from which it [could] be inferred that any legal undertaking was intended to exist”.933(2) Generally speaking, the cases studied by the Commission confirm the relevance of this principle. In the Commission’s view, it is particularly important to take account of the context 928 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, article 6. 929 See the jurisprudence cited in support of Guiding Principles 1 and 3. 930Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France),I.C.J. Reports1974, pp. 269-70, para. 51, and pp. 474-5, para. 53. 931Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali),I.C.J. Reports1986, pp. 573-4, paras. 39-40. 932Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application,para. 49. 933Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, I.C.J. Reports1986, p. 132, para. 261, and Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali),I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 573, para. 39. Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating legal obligations, with commentaries thereto 2006Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its Fifty-eighth session, in 2006, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/61/10). The report, which also contains commentaries on the draft articles, will appear in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2006, vol. II, Part Two. Copyright © United Nations2006
854
Annex 136
372and circumstances in which the declarations were made in the case of the Swiss statements concerning the privileges and immunities of United Nations staff,934 the Egyptian declaration of 1957935 and Jordan’s waiver of claims to the West Bank territories.936(3) Several of these examples show the importance of the reactions of other States concerned in evaluating the legal scope of the unilateral acts in question, whether those States take cognizance of commitments undertaken937 (or, in some cases, rights asserted938), or, on the contrary, object to939 or challenge the binding nature of the “commitments” at issue.9404. A unilateral declaration binds the State internationally only if it is made by an authority vested with the power to do so. By virtue of their functions, heads of State, heads of Government and ministers for foreign affairs are competent to formulate such declarations. Other persons representing the State in specified areas may be authorized to bind it, through their declarations, in areas falling within their competence. Commentary (1) Guiding Principle 4 is also inspired by the consistent jurisprudence of the P.C.I.J. and I.C.J., on unilateral acts and the capacity of State authorities to represent and commit the State internationally. In its recent Judgment on jurisdiction and admissibility in the case of ArmedActivities on the Territory of the Congo, the International Court of Justice observed, referring to 934 A/CN.4/557, para. 157. 935Ibid., paras. 58-60 or 66. See also, by analogy, in the case of conduct other than unilateral statements, the courses of conduct followed by Thailand and Cambodia in the Temple of Preah Vihear case (ibid.,paras. 160-167 and Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihea (Cambodia v. Thailand) Judgment of 15 June 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, pp. 32-34). 936Ibid., paras. 47-48. 937 Cf. the international community’s reactions to the Egyptian statement on the Suez Canal (ibid., paras. 63-64); also the reactions to Jordan’s statement about the West Bank (ibid., paras. 48 and 50-51). 938 Cf. the reactions of certain States to the Truman Proclamation (ibid., paras. 132-134); also the note dated 22 November 1952 by the Venezuelan Government concerning the Los Monjes archipelago (ibid., para. 17 - yet like the Ihlen Declaration (see footnote 926 above) this note was clearly a matter of bilateral negotiations with Colombia). 939 See in particular Uruguay’s refusal of a donation of vaccines from Cuba (ibid., paras. 38-39) or the Russian protest at the law passed by Turkmenistan in 1993 on the delimitation of its internal and territorial waters in the Caspian Sea (ibid., paras. 84-98). 940 Cf. the reactions of the non-nuclear-weapon States to the statements made in April 1995 to the Conference on Disarmament by the permanent members of the Security Council (ibid., paras. 113-115); their scepticism is, incidentally, vindicated by the content of those statements.
Annex 136
855
374was confirmed by subsequent domestic acts.946 In the case of the declaration by the Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs about Venezuelan sovereignty over the Los Monjes archipelago, the note itself was set aside in domestic law because its author had no authority to make such a commitment, yet the Colombian authorities did not challenge the validity of the commitment at the international level.947(3) In its Judgment of 3 February 2006,948 the I.C.J., did, however, note that “with increasing frequency in modern international relations other persons representing a State in specific fields may be authorized by that State to bind it by their statements in respect of matters falling within their purview. This may be true, for example, of holders of technical ministerial portfolios exercising powers in their field of competence in the area of foreign relations, and even of certain officials”.9495. Unilateral declarations may be formulated orally or in writing.Commentary (1) It is generally accepted that the form of a unilateral declaration does not affect its validity or legal effects. The I.C.J. mentioned the relative unimportance of formalities950 in its Judgment in the Temple of Preah Vihear case in connection with unilateral conduct.951 In the Nuclear Tests cases, the Court emphasized that “[w]ith regard to the question of form, it should be observed that this is not a domain in which international law imposes any special or strict requirements. Whether a statement is made orally or in writing makes no essential difference, 946Ibid., para. 54. 947Ibid., para. 35. 948Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, para. 46. 949Ibid., para. 47. 950 See The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment of 30 August 1924, P.C.I..J,. Series A, No. 2, p. 34; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Judgment of 11 July 1996, I.C.J.Reports 1996, p. 612, para. 24 and p. 613, para. 26. 951Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 May 1961, I.C.J. Reports 1961, p. 31.
856
Annex 136
375for such statements made in particular circumstances may create commitments in international law, which does not require that they should be couched in written form. Thus the question of form is not decisive”.952(2) State practice also shows the many different forms that unilateral declarations by States may take. The various declarations by France about the cessation of atmospheric nuclear tests took the form of a communiqué from the Office of the President of the Republic, a diplomatic note, a letter from the President of the Republic sent directly to those to whom the declaration was addressed, a statement made during a press conference and a speech to the General Assembly.953 Other examples also go to show that, while written declarations prevail,954it is not unusual for States to commit themselves by simple oral statements.955(3) France’s statements on the suspension of atmospheric nuclear tests also show that a unilateral commitment by a State can come about through a series of declarations with the same general thrust, none of which might, in isolation, have bound the State. In its Judgments of 1974 on the Nuclear Tests cases, the I.C.J. did not concentrate on any particular declaration by the French authorities but took them, together, to constitute a whole: “[the] statements [by the President of the French Republic], and those of members of the French Government acting under his authority, up to the last statement made by the Minister of Defence (of 11 October 1974), constitute a whole. Thus, in whatever form the statements were952Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France), I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 267-268, para. 45, and p. 473, para. 48. 953 Cf. Eighth report, A/CN.4/557, paras. 71 and 72. 954 Consider the examples of the note dated 22 November 1952 from the Colombian Minister for Foreign Affairs (ibid., para. 13), the Egyptian declaration of 24 April 1957 (ibid., paras. 55 ff.), the protests by the Russian Federation against Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan (ibid., paras. 85 and 99), the statements by the nuclear-weapon States (statements made before an international body, ibid., paras. 106-107), the Truman Proclamation of 28 September 1945 (ibid., para. 127) and the Swiss statements concerning the United Nations and its staff members (tax exemptions and privileges) (ibid., paras. 140-142). 955 See, for example, Jordan’s waiver of its claims to the West Bank territories in a public speech, (ibid., para. 44) or the Ihlen Declaration (ibid., para. 117 - see Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Judgment of 5 April 1933, P.C.I.J.,Series A./B., No. 53, p. 71.
Annex 136
857
376expressed, they must be held to constitute an engagement of the State, having regard to their intention and to the circumstances in which they were made”.9566. Unilateral declarations may be addressed to the international community as a whole, to one or several States or to other entities. Commentary (1) Several of the cases examined remain within the scope of strictly bilateral relations between two States; accordingly these unilateral declarations by a State had another State as the sole addressee. Such was the case of the Colombian diplomatic note addressed to Venezuela,957the Cuban declarations concerning the supply of vaccines to Uruguay,958 the protests by the Russian Federation against Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan959 and the Ihlen Declaration.960(2) Although initially concerning a limited group of States, other declarations were addressed to the international community as a whole, containing erga omnes undertakings. Thus, Egypt’s declaration regarding the Suez Canal was not addressed only to the States parties to the Constantinople Convention or to the States members of the Suez Canal Users’ Association, but to the entire international community.961 Similarly, the Truman Proclamation,962 and also the French declarations regarding suspension of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, although the latter were of more direct concern to Australia and New Zealand, as well as certain neighbouring States963 were also made erga omnes and, accordingly, were addressed to the 956Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France), I.C.J. Reports1974, p. 269, para. 49, and p. 474, para. 51. See also the Swiss statements concerning the United Nations and its staff members (tax exemptions and privileges) A/CN.4/557, paras. 138-156). 957 A/CN.4/557, paras. 15 and 16. 958Ibid., para. 36. 959Ibid., paras. 85 and 99. 960Ibid., para. 117. 961Ibid., para. 62. 962Ibid., para. 127. 963 Fiji filed an application to intervene in the proceedings. The Government of Argentina, Fiji and Peru requested that the pleadings and annexed documents should be made available to them. See Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France), I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 6, paras. 7 and 9.
858
Annex 136
Annex 137
Final Report of the 13th Joint Oceanographic Regional Cruise in the Southeast Pacific
Website of the CPPS
859
9COMPORTAMIENTO METEOROLOGICO Y OCEANOGRAFICO EN EL PACIFICO SUDESTE DURANTE SEPTIEMBRE-OCTUBREDE 2010E. Rodríguez-Rubio11.RESUMENEntre el 13de septiembre y el 23de octubre de 2010se efectuó el XIIICrucero Regional Conjunto de Investigaciones Oceanográficas en el Pacífico Sudeste, en el marcodel protocolo ERFEN de la CPPS. Se realizaron149 estaciones oceanográficas a lo largo del borde este del Océano Pacífico sudamericano en las cuales se tomaron datos físicos, químicos y biológicos, que constituyeron el primer monitoreo in situ del eventofríodel 2010.Las condiciones oceanográficasencontradas durante la realizacióndel XIII crucero regional conjunto del programaERFEN de la ComisiónPermanente del Pacifico Sur(CPPS)evidencian la presencia de condiciones relacionadas a la fase fría del ENOS, tambiénconocida como La Niña, en gran parte de la regióndel Pacifico Sudeste.Las característicasmás sobresalientes del XIII Crucero regionalConjuntofueronla presencia de fuertes anomalíastérmicasnegativas en casi toda la zona,especialmenteentre Ecuador y norte del Perú,exceptuandoalgunas zonas al sur de Perúyla cuenca Pacifica colombiana donde las anomalíasfueronconsideradas como dentro de las condicionesneutralescon un leve enfriamientocon respecto al ENOSpara octubre.Se destaca la disminución de las anomalías en la zona sur de Perúyzona costera chilenapara octubre indicando un posible retroceso de la Niña en dichas zonas.Por otro lado las anomalíasde temperatura del mar y del nivel del mar observadas mediante el uso de datos satelitalesentre septiembre y octubre de 2010 mostraronel incremento importante de las anomalíasnegativas en una franja entre la zona oceánicaalfrente de Ecuadory norte de Perúentre septiembre y octubre.Asimismo se observóy un mayor enfriamientode la cuenca del Pacífico colombiano paraoctubre, sin embargo lazona costera entre lazona central y sur del Perú,asícomo las costas de Chileevidenciaron unareducción de las anomalíasnegativasaoctubrede 2010,llegando a condiciones ENOScercanas a laneutralidad en dichas zonas.2.INTRODUCCIONLa realización de los cruceros regionales conjuntos de investigación oceanográficaen el Pacífico Sudeste, desde su comienzo en 1998, han permitido observar casi INFORME FINAL DEL DECIMO TERCEROCRUCERO REGIONAL CONJUNTOOCEANOGRÀFICO EN EL PACIFICO SUDESTECOORDINADOR TECNICO REGIONAL (COLOMBIA)
860
Annex 137
10de manera simultánea diferentes condiciones del océano, de la siguiente manera: el Niño 1997-1998; La Niña 1999; relativa normalidad 2001; signos de El Niño 2002 en el Pacífico Ecuatorial Occidental y Central; condiciones de plena normalidad 2003, y con anomalías positivas de TSMen el Pacífico Ecuatorial Occidental y Central en el 2004, este hecho constituye un aporte muy importantes en el proceso que lleve al cabal cumplimiento del objetivo general del Programa Estudio Regional del Fenómeno de El Niño -ERFEN, de poder lograr predecir los cambios océano-atmosféricos, con anticipación suficiente como para permitir políticas de adaptación o de emergencia frente a variaciones en el rendimiento pesquero, agrícola e industrial y decisiones de mercadeo, manejo de recursos hidrobiológicos y otras.Las condiciones oceanográficas y meteorológicas observadas desde el mes de julio de 2010en el Océano Pacífico ecuatorial mostraban el inicio de condiciones consistentes con la presencia de La Niña en el Océano Pacifico. La TSM en las zonas Niño para ese mes presentó anomalías negativas entre 0.5°C y 1.7 °Csiendo la zona Niño 1+2 la que mayor anomalía presentó. Para octubre las anomalías negativas en todo el Pacífico ecuatorial alcanzaron sus mayores valores observándose anomalías negativas entre 1.4°C y 1.9°C, observándose el mayor descenso de la temperatura nuevamente en la zona Niño 1+2. Para octubre de 2010, las condiciones climáticasy oceanográficas que se observaban en el Océano Pacífico fueron típicas de la fase totalmente desarrollada de un evento de La Niña.En esta ocasión la realización del XIIICrucero Regional Conjunto permitió conocer condiciones meteorológicas y oceanográficas (superficiales y sub-superficiales hasta 500 m) del mar en las aguas jurisdiccionales de Colombia, Ecuador y Perú, desde la latitud 7º N hasta 20° S, durante los mesesde septiembre y octubre de 2010.Para el caso de Chile debido a los trágicossucesos productodelterremoto y posterior tsunamiocurridosel 27febrerode 2010,el gobierno de Chile decidió suspender la realización del crucero regional durante el año 2010.El análisis de las condiciones oceánicas encontradas durante este crucero regional permite prever la continuación de condiciones La Niña durante los próximos meses del 2010 y principios del 2011. 3.METODOLOGIAElXIIICrucero Regional Conjunto de Investigación Oceanográfica, coordinado porla CPPS, se realizó entre el 13 de septiembre y el 23 de octubre de 2010. En el crucero participaron un total de 3naves pertenecientes a instituciones de investigación de Colombia, Ecuador y Perú (Anexo 1).Durante el crucero se realizaron 149estaciones oceanográficas distribuidas, en su mayoría, encortes perpendiculares a la costa. El área de estudio abarcó las
Annex 137
861
33Figura 1. Distribución espacial de las estaciones oceanográficas realizadas en el XIIICrucero Regional Conjunto de la CPPS entre septiembre y octubre de 2010.
862
Annex 137
[…]
By October 2010, climatic and oceanographic conditions which were observed in the Pacific Ocean were typical of a fully developed phase of an instance of La Niña. On this occasion, the execution of the XIII Joint Regional Cruise permitted understanding of the meteorological and oceanographic conditions (superficial and sub-superficial up to 500m) of the sea in the jurisdictional waters of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, from latitude 7º N to 20º S, during the months of September and October 2010. In the case of Chile, due to tragic events resulting from the earthquake and subsequent tsunami occurring on 27 February 2010, the government of Chile decided to suspend the execution of the regional cruise during 2010.
[…]
Annex 137
863
864
PRESS ARTICLES
865
866
Annex 138
J. M. Peña Prado, Address to the Congress of Peru
reproduced in La Crónica, 7 May 1955
867
868
Annex 138
THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT IS THE CROWNING POINT OF THE EFFORTS BETTER TO DEFEND SOVEREIGNTY AND JURISDICTION IN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS.
Said Dr. Juan Manuel Peña Prado in a substantiated statement in his Chamber.
We hereinafter reproduce the important intervention of Deputy Dr. Juan Manuel Peña Prado during the session of Congress held on the 5th instant. We offer it after having obtained it in its entirety; in it, the distinguished congressman reaffirms the historical, legal and fair stance on the 200 nautical miles of the Peruvian Coast. Dr. Peña Prado, with a wide experience in the field, essentially supported the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress, when the agreements and conventions signed between the Governments of Peru, Chile and Ecuador on the Exploitation and Conservation of the Maritime Resources of the South Pacific were put to debate. Here is the text of this important intervention:
[…]
The purposes of these conferences held in Santiago de Chile are the declaration of the maritime zone, the Agreements signed for establishing the control and surveillance of our seas, for establishing the maritime boundaries between the signatory countries, for determining the sanctions, the permits and the meeting of the Permanent Commission that must take place every year.
[…]
Annex 138
869
870
Annex 138
[…]
This Conference and its agreements constitute the achievement of the first conference held in Santiago in the year 1952, in which the sovereignty over the Maritime Zone, the surveillance and control of our seas, the demarcation of our maritime boundary, the sanctions, the permits and the meeting of the Permanent Commission that must take place every year were established.*
[…]
In the Agreement on maritime boundaries it is established that as from 12 miles off the Coast, an imaginary line with a width of 10 miles will be drawn on each side of the parallel that serves as the boundary between the two countries. This zone is a neutral zone that serves for avoiding the existence of slips and the emergence of conflicts or frictions between bordering countries, especially regarding small vessels whose sailors may get lost or enter into it. This would certainly not imply a right to fish in the Country that has been invaded.
[…]
* This translation is a correction of the translation submitted at Annex 246, p. 1471 of the Counter- Memorial.
Annex 138
871
872
Annex 139
“Frontera Marítima Perú y Chile Demarcarán”
El Expreso, 27 June 1969
873
874
Annex 139
PERU AND CHILE WILL DEMARCATE MARITIME FRONTIER
SANTIAGO DE CHILE, 27 June (AFP).– A Chile-Peru meeting to demarcate the maritime frontier between the two countries will be held here, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported.
The meeting of the Chile-Peru Mixed Commission would possibly occur on 15 July and would be aimed at determining in a clear way, with day-time and night-time signalling, the alignment marks which will indicate the boundary of the territorial waters of the two countries to fishing vessels.
Negotiations to determine the boundary of maritime sovereignties were initiated in January 1968, as reported by the director of frontiers and boundaries, Fabio Vio Valdivieso.
The above-mentioned official added that both Chile and Peru initiated these negotiations at a technical level in order to put a definitive end to the capturing of both Chilean and Peruvian schooners.
Finally, Vio Valdivieso said that the placement of special towers, one of which will be built by Chile and the other one by Peru, will allow fishing vessels which sail in the area to avoid making mistakes in the delimitation of their zone of work.
Annex 139
875
876
Annex 140
“Torres y Señalización en la Frontera Marítima: Tacna - Arica”
La Voz de Tacna, 1 July 1969
877
878
Annex 140
[Translation]
Towers and Signalling at the Maritime Frontier: Tacna-Arica
According to information sent from Santiago de Chile by cable, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of that country has reported that a Chile-Peru Technical Commission will meet in the Chilean capital on 15 July 1969 in order to agree, definitively, the demarcation of the maritime frontier between the two countries.
The information specifies that, at that meeting, alignment marks will be established which, with day-time and night-time signalling, will signal the boundary of the territorial waters of Peru and Chile to fishing vessels and fishermen generally.
It is recalled that the negotiations to establish the said boundary started in January of this year.
Finally, it was reported that special towers will be placed at the maritime frontier of Tacna and Arica in order for fishing vessels to avoid making mistakes on the delimitation of their zones of work.
[Transcript]
Torres y Señalización en la Frontera Marítima: Tacna-Arica
Según información cablegráfica procedente de Santiago de Chile, la Cancillería de ese país ha informado que el próximo 15 de Julio se reunirá en la capital chilena una Comisión Técnica Chileno-Peruana para acordar, en definitiva, la demarcación de la frontera marítima entre los dos países.
Puntualiza la información que en esa reunión se determinará las marcas en el enfilamiento, con señalización diurna y nocturnas que señalará a las embarcaciones pesqueras y pescadores en general, el límite de las aguas territoriales del Perú y Chile.
Se recuerda que las gestiones para establecer dicho límite se iniciaron en Enero del presente año.
Por último, se informó que se colocarán torres especiales en la frontera marítima de Tacna y Arica con el objeto de que las naves pesqueras no incurran en errores en la delimitación en sus zonas de trabajo.
Annex 140
879
880
Annex 141
“Chile y Perú Analizan Delimitación Marina”
El Mercurio, 12 June 1986
881
882
Annex 141
Chile and Peru Analyze Marine Delimitation
LIMA, 11 (EFE).– Peru and Chile are working on the maritime delimitation of their waters, the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs Allan Wagner said here today, pointing out that it is a complex topic but that it cannot be avoided.
Wagner thus replied to a comment published in Chilean newspaper “La Segunda” about [the view] that the topic of maritime delimitation could negatively interfere with the negotiations the two countries are carrying out in order to fully perform the Treaty of Lima of 1929.
For the purposes of complying with the abovementioned treaty, Chile is building port and rail facilities in the port of Arica for the installation there of Peruvian personnel to administer a mooring quay.
The foundations are being laid down for a permanent détente and cooperation between Peru and Chile, said the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as to consider the reduction of armament expenditure in the two nations.
In this regard, a first meeting of high-ranking military officials of Peru and Chile was held in Lima, and a second meeting will take place in Santiago by the end of 1986.
On the issue of the sea, Wagner said that in the Declaration of Santiago, signed by Peru, Chile and Ecuador, rules for the maritime delimitation were established.
According to that treaty, the line of the parallels was established for that delimitation. However, in some cases it is not the parallel which determines the angle created by the coasts of two countries, Wagner said, as it does not exactly coincide with the frontier line.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out that the use of the parallel, in the case of Peru and Chile, allows Chilean fishing vessels to fish 30 miles off Peruvian coasts and that is what is intended to be corrected, Wagner concluded.
Annex 141
883
884
Annex 142
“Cancillería chilena informa sobre delimitación con Perú”
El Comercio, 17 June 1986
885
886
Annex 142
Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs informs about delimitation with Peru
SANTIAGO, 13 (UPI).- The government of Chile denied that it had initiated negotiations on maritime delimitation with Peru, as indicated in reports of national press which were reproduced abroad.
Evening newspaper “La Segunda” affirmed that an envoy from Peru, Ambassador Juan Miguel Bákula, had initiated conversations with the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the maritime delimitation, which “could hinder” progress to conclude the 1929 boundary treaty between the two nations.
A spokesperson for the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pablo Valdés, affirmed today that during Bákula’s visit only the participation of the two countries in the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific was dealt with, “as well as the need to reinforce this entity’s activity”.
Also, “points of view” on Chile’s position vis-à-vis the Latin American Organization of Fishing Development were exchanged, Valdés added.
The Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Allan Wagner, said yesterday in Lima that maritime delimitation is a topic which “cannot be avoided” since the present measurement system, based on the line of the parallels, allows Chilean fishing vessels to fish 30 miles off the Peruvian coast.
The Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged today that Bákula announced the interest of the Peruvian government in initiating conversations on the topic, “taking into account the existing good relations between the two countries”.
Annex 142
887
888
Annex 143
“Perú y Chile continuarán con actividades pesqueras”
El Peruano, 16 August 2007
889
Perú y Chile continuarán con actividades pesqueras
890
Annex 143
Peru and Chile will continue with fishing activities
While the International Court of Justice in The Hague decides on the maritime delimitation, [the Minister of Foreign Affairs] affirms that Peru is only complying with the Baselines Law.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, José Antonio García Belaunde, affirmed yesterday that Peru and Chile will continue carrying out their fishing activities as they have been doing over the past years, while the International Court at The Hague resolves the maritime delimitation.
He added that the publication of the cartography of the Peruvian maritime dominion in the boundary zone with Chile is nothing more than compliance with the Baselines Law of 2005, which establishes the points for the projection of the 200 miles in which sovereignty, jurisdiction and use of the Peruvian sea are exercised.
“This chart establishes what we have named the area in controversy [área en controversia], and this does not alter the practice that the two countries have been developing in this area…In the meantime, the fishing activities which have been carried out year after year will continue”, he indicated.
[…]
Annex 143
891
Fuente: http://www.elperuano.com.pe/edc/2007/08/16/pol5.asp
[…]
3) “And while the Court in The Hague resolves this matter, the status quo shall be maintained, the situation shall be maintained as it has been until now in the area in controversy [área en controversia]” García Belaunde emphasized.
892
Annex 143
Annex 144
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, Chile comprometido con la democracia y el orden constitucional, Press Release No. 758 of 11 October 2010
Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador
893
894
Annex 144
Quito, 11 October 2010
CHILE, COMMITTED WITH DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER
[…]
Annex 144
895
[…]
President Correa, in closing the meeting, also addressed the issue of the boundary dispute between Chile and Peru; “if the boundaries are legally ratified in accordance with the Ecuadorean Nautical Chart (Decree 450), there would be no need to intervene in the proceedings, but if [the Nautical Chart] is challenged by Peru, we should consider seriously the prospect of Ecuador taking part in the proceedings at The Hague”, he affirmed. In that respect President Piñera considers that there has always been an historical, consistent and permanent coincidence in the way of interpreting the treaties by Ecuador and Chile.
PRESS RELEASE No. 758
896
Annex 144