121

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GUILLAUME

[Translation]

Maritime boundary deriving from tacit agreement between Peru and Chile
extending up to 80 nautical miles along parallel of latitude — Remaining boundary
to be determined in accordance with customary international law — Starting­
points of maritime and land boundaries not coinciding — Consequences.

1. Peru filed an Application with the Court against Chile which had a

114

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

112

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GAJA

110

DECLARATION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE

100

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES XUE,
GAJA, BHANDARI
AND JUDGE AD HOC ORREGO VICUÑA

Introduction

98

DECLARATION OF JUDGE SKOTNIKOV

1. I have voted in favour of the Court’s conclusions set forth in the
operative clause. However, I do not agree with the Court’s treatment éof
the issue of the extent of the agreed maritime boundary between Peru and
Chile.
2. I support the Court’s conclusion that, prior to the signing of the
1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement, there was a tacit agree -

86

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA

1. The Judgment, in its operative part (dispositif) states the decision of
the Court, inter alia, as follows :

“The Court,

(1) . . .,
Decides that the starting-point of the single maritime boundary

82

DECLARATION
OF VICE-PRESIDENT SEPÚLVEDA-AMOR

By itself, the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement does not su▯pport
the existence of a tacit agreement on maritime delimitation between Peru and
Chile — Evidence of the establishment of a permanent maritime boundary on

74

DECLARATION OF PRESIDENT TOMKA

The single maritime boundary between the Parties starts at the intersect▯ion of
the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low­water
line, and follows that parallel of latitude — Such boundary did not stop at a
distance of 80 nautical miles — The 1954 Agreement relating to a Special

605

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SUR

[Translation]