INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MARITIME DISPUTE
(PERUv.CHILE)
REPLY OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF PERU
VOLUME 1
9 NOVEMBER 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
I. The Main Characteristics of Chile's Couoter
Memorial 1
II. Peru and the Law of the Sea 8
III. Historieal Background 13
IV. General OuUine of the Reply 14
CHAPTER 1: JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY 17
1. Introduction 17
II. Chile's Allegation that ''Peru Has Contrived a
Dispute" 18
III. Peru's Claims Are Not Excluded from Reference
to the Court by the Pact of Bogota 21
A. C HILE'S DlSTORTIONOF ARTICLE VI OF THE PPCTOF
BOGOTÂ 21
B. C HILE'S DISTORTION OF PERU'S CASE 25
IV. Chile's Obscure Allegation that ''Peru's Pleaded
Claims" Are Inadmissible since They Bear Upon
Peru's "Maritime Dominion" 32 IV
CHAPTER II: THE STARTING-POINT FOR THE
MARITIME DELIMITATION 37
I. Introduction 37
II. The Incompatibility of Chile's Contentions with
the 1929 Treaty of Lima 38
III. The Work of the Demarcation Joint Commission 41
A. THE INSTRUCTION:IssUEDBY THE TwoGOVERNMENrS
TO THE :MEMBERS OF THE DEMARCATION JOIm
CO:MMISSION 41
B. T HE CONrEMPORANEOΠSK ETCH-M'\p DE PICTING
THE BOUNDARY 49
C. THE21 JULY 1930 FINAL ACT OF THE DEM<\RCATION
JOINrCO:MMISSION AND THE AcT OF 5 AUGUST 1930 55
D. T HE LOCATION OF THE TERMINUS OF THE LAND
BOUNDARY AT POINr CONCORD IA 62
IV. The Subsequent Practice of the Parties 69
V. The Significance of the Land Boundary for
Maritime Delimitation 84
VI. Conclusions 91
CHAPTER III: THE 1952 DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO 93
I. Introduction 93
II. The 1952 Declaration of Santiago and Its
Background 98
A. C HILE 'S CLAIMTHATHE DEClARATION OF SANT IAGO
HAS ITS OR IGINS IN THE UNIlATERAL ClAIM'O OF
1947 98
B. T HE PUR POSE AND CHARACTER OF THE 1947
CIAlMl 98
1. Legal Character ofChiZe's1947 Proclamation
and Peru'sSupreme Decree 99
2. The Use of the 'A1athematical ParaUe!' to
Constrnct the Seaward Boundary 106
3. The 'Prior Instances of Use of ParaUels of
Latitude' 116 v
4. Conclusion Concerning the 1947 Claims 119
C. AESEN=: E OF D EVELOPMENrS BETWEEN THE 1947
ClA.I:MAND THE 1952 DEClARATION OF SANrIAGO 120
D. T HE 1952DEC LARATION OF SANr IAGO 121
1. The Declaration of Santiago Does Not
Purport to Establish any A1aritime
Boundaries between the States that Signed
the Declaration 121
2. Points II and IV of the Declaration of
Santiago 126
3. Point IV ofthe Declaration ofSantiago Is Not
Based Upon a Presumed Use ofthe ParaUel
as the A1ainland Boundary 133
E. T HE INV ITATION:':TO THE 1952 SANT IAGO
CONFERE}K': E 140
F. T HE STAT ED PUR POSES OF THE 1952DEC LARATION
OF SANr IAGO 146
G. SUBS EQUENT REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PURPOSES
OF THE 1952 DECLARATION OF SANr IAGO 149
H. CO}K: LŒION: T HE PERU-C HILE INrERW!.TIONAL
~ IT rE:BOUNDARY Wp,s NOT AGR EED IN THE
1952 D ECLARATION OF SANr IAGO 160
III. The Legal Status of the 1952 Declaration of
Santiago 160
A. T HE DEC LARATION OF SANr IAGO, WR EN ORIGINAL LY
FORMUlA.T ED,wp,sNJT A TREATY 162
1. Definition of"Treaty" 162
2. The Actual Tenns of the Declaration of
Santiago 163
3. Fonn ofthe Declaration of Santiago 165
4. Particular Circumstances ln which the
Declaration of Santiago Was Drawn Up 168
5. Subsequent Treatment of the Declaration of
Santiago by the States Concerned 169
B. T HE DEClARATION OF SANr IAGO CAME TO BE
TREATED BY THE PARr ICIPATIN3 STATES p,s A TREATY 170 VI
1. Submission cf the Declaration to the Respective
Congresses 170
2. Registration cf the Declaration cf Santiago
under Article 102 ofthe Charter of the United
Nations in 1976 173
C. THE DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO WI\S AND Is NOTAN
INrERW!.TIONAL M".RITI:MEBOUNDARY AGREEMENr 175
1. State Practice ln the Conclusion of
International A1aritime Boundary Agreements 175
2. lrrelevance of the Attitude of Third States,
the Secretariat of the United Nations and
Authors 177
IV. Does Chile Prove Its Case? 182
CHAPTER IV: PRACTICE AFTER THE 1952
DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO 185
I. Introduction 185
II. The Six 1954 Agreements 186
III. Events after 1954 194
A. PRPCTICAL ARRANGEMENrS AND SPECI FIe PURPOS E
REGIONS 194
B. THE 1986 BÂKulA. :MEMORANDUM: PERUINVITES
CHILE TO AGREE AN INr ERNATIONAL M".RITIM E
BOUNDARY
206
C. T HE PERM".NENT Cm •.fMISSIONFOR THE SOUT H
PAC IFI (epPS): T HE JURISDICTION OF THE STAT E
DoRS NOT PRESUPPOSE DELLMITED M".RITIM E
ZONES 209
IV. Third-Party Cartographie I\IIaterial 216
V. Chile's Practiee Evidencing the Absence of an
Agreed Maritime Boundary 220
A. THE DECLARATION OF SANrIA.GO COULD NOT HAV E
DELIMITED A ~TLME BOUNDARY ALON3 THE
PARALLEL OFHlTONo. 1 IN ANY EVENr 221
B. THE 1964 C HILEAN :M:rNISTRY OF FOR EIGN AFFAIRS
L EGAL ADVLSOR RE PORT No. 138:T HE PRESUMPTION
OF A NON-AGREED ~IT r:MBEOUNDARY 226 VII
C. CHILE'S LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENr TO THE
DEClARATION OF SANrIAGO 230
D. C HILE 'S CONDŒT \VITH RESPECT TO THE C HILE
ARGENrINA BOUNDARY AGREEMENr 237
E. T HE ABsEN:::E OF A ~TIME BOUNDARY ON C HILE 'S
MAFS 240
VI. Peru's Maps
253
VII. Conclusions 262
CHAPTER V: THE DELIMITATION LINE 269
1. Introduction 269
II. Peru's Position Respects the Principles and Rules
of International Law 271
III. The Inequitableness of Chile's Position 274
IV. Issues Concerning the Applicable Law and the
Delimitation of the Parties' :Maritime Zones 282
V. Conclusions 292
CHAPTER VI: THE OUTER TRIANGlE 295
1. Introduction 295
II. Peru's Alleged Inconsistent Submissions 296
A. PERU'S Sum.1IsSIoNS ARE INDEPENDENr AND
COMPLEM ENrARY 298
B. PERU'S SECOND Sum. lI SSION STANDS ON ITS OWN 299
III. Irrelevance of Chile's "Agreed Delimitation"
Claim on Peru's Entitlement to Sovereign Rights
in the Outer Triangle 306
A. T HE C HILE 'S CLAIMFOR AN UNLIMIT ED SEAWARD
EXTENSION OF THE ALLEGED PARALLEL OF
LATITUD E 307
1. The Inapplicability of Point II of the
Declaration ofSantiago 308 VIII
2. Peru's Exclusive Sovereign Rights within
the Outer Triangle exc/ude any Third
Party's Claim 310
3. Pern Has Not Renounced lis Sovereign Rights
within the Outer Triangle 311
B. THE CHILE'S ClAlM BASED ON AN ALLEGED
LIMITATION OF ITS AcCESTO THE HIGH SEAS 313
IV. Chile's Argument Concerning The Method
Used by Peru to Measure the Outer Limit of Its
Maritime Domain 318
CHAPTER VII: SUMMARY 327
SUBMISSIONS
331
LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES IN VOLUME 1
Figure R-2.1 Variance in the Boundary positions taken by
Messrs. Basadre and Brieba 43
Figure R-2.3 :Mapof the Initial Sector of the Peru-Chile Land
Boundary. Sketch-map IX (Prepared and signed by
Enrique Briel::e) 51
Figure R-2.8 "The Boundary on the Beach" (Taken from :MI.
Brieba's Memoir) 57
Figure R-2.9 Point 266 as the Starting-Point for the Peru-Chile
Land Boundary 67
Figure R-2.10 General:Map of the Departments of Tacna and
Arica, as they have been divided (From Volume 1
of:MI. BrieŒ'sMemoir) 71
Figure R-2.13 Official:Map of Arica: 1966 (Published by the
Instituto Geografico Militar de Chile). Arica 1815
-7015 73
Figure R-2.14 Rada y Puerto de Arica: 1989 (Excerpt from
Chilean Nautical Chart 101)
75
Figure R-2.15 Rada y Puerto de Arica: 1998 (Excerpt from
Chilean Nautical Chart1111) 75 IX
Figure R-2_19 Monograph. 2 July 1992 (prepared by the Chilean
Delegalion as part of their inspection of Boundary
79
MarlŒrNo. 2)
Figure R-2.20 Satellite Image Showing the Base of the Deslfoyed
Peruvian Light Tower 89
Figure R-2.21 Photograph of the Base of the Destroyed Peruvian
Light Tower and Its Alignmenl with the Chilean
Light Tower 89
Figure R-3.1 :Maritime Boundary Scenario where point IV is
redundant
:Maritime Boundary Scenario where point IV is
unnecessary
Maritime Boundary Scenario where point IV çrotects
islandA 135
Figur e R-4.1 La Comisi6n Permanente dei Pacific o Sur (Red
Imernacional del Libro. Santiago de ChUe. 1993.
p.33) 217
Figure R. 4.2 Chile's Maritime Boundary Claim Delim ils
Exclusivel.y Peruvian Waters 223
Figure R-4.3 Chile's Erroneous Point 1on ilS2000 8aselin e 227
Figure R-4.4 Physical and Touristic:Map of Chile: 1980 243
Figure R-4.S Amérique du Sud: 2007 (Published by Institut
Geographique National de France) 245
Figure R-4.7 Rada y Puerto de Arica: 1998 (Chilean Nautical
ChaTt 1111) 249
Figure R-4.8 Chile's Hydrographic Service Catalogue: 2003 251
Figur e R-4.9 Political Map of Peru: 1970 (Published by the
Instituto Nacional de Planificaci6n del Perd)
257
Figure R-4.14 Map Pu\iished by Peru's Minislfy of Fisheries:
1973 259
Figure R-4.15 Political Map of Peru: 1989 (Published by the
InstitUo Geogrâfico Nacional deI Perd) 263
Figure R·4.17 The Peruvian Sea and ilS LimilS (Fauta Gaig,
Guillermo S.: El Mar Peruano y sus Umites, Lima,
Amauta, 1977) 265
Figure R-S.l The Equidistance Methodology 275
Figure R-S.2 Proportionality Test applied to the Equidistance
Methocblogy 277 x
Figure R-S.3 Inequitable Cut-off effeet caused by Chile's
Delimitation Claim & Proportionality Test apphed
(0 Chile's Delimitati on Claim 279
Figure R-S.4 Guyana - Surinam e Continental Shelf Boundary
Award: 2000 287
Figure R-S.S Cameroon - Nigeria ICl Judgment: 2002 289
Figure R-6.1 Argentina - Chile Boundary Agreement: 1984 315
Figure R-6.2 Perll's :Maritime Boundary Claim Allows Chile
Direc t Access to its own Maritime Space 319
Figure R-6.3 Chile's Maritime Boundary Claim Blocks Peru
from Direct Access to its own Maritim e Space 321
LIST OF APENDICES AND ANNEXES (VOLUME Il) 333
LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES (VOWME III ) 341
LIST OF DOCUMENTS DEPOSITED WITH THE
REGISTRY 345 INTRODUCTION
1. The International Court of Justice, by Order dated 27 April 2010, fixed 9
November 2010 as the time liruit for filing the Reply of the Republic of Peru
(hereinafter ''Peru'')in the Case Concerning Maritime Dispute (Peru v. ChiZe).
Peru submits this Reply pursuant ta that Order.
2. In accordance with Article 49 (3) of the Rules of Court, thiReply will foeus
on those issues that still divide the Partiesn light of the Counter-Memorial
submitted by the Republic of Chile (hereinafter "Chile").
I. The Main Charac!erislics of Chile's Counler·Memorial
3. Although Chile develops several Iines of reasoning which seem ta he
independentfrom one another, they all appear ta come clownta a single thesis.
According ta Chile, the subject matter of the dispute - the delimitation of a
maritime boundary between Peru and Chile - has been already settled by the
Parties tbrough an agreement. Chile asserts that this agreement is laid down
in the Declaration on The Maritime Zone of 18 August 1952 (hereinafter
"Declaration of Santiago"): 2
"The Parties have already delimited their maritime boundary
by agreement, in the Declaration on the :Maritime Zone (the
Santiago Declaration). This is a triplItite international
agreement between Chile, Peru and Ecuador, which was
concluded in August 1952. Themaritime-boundary line between
Chile and Peru, and between Ecuador and Peru, is'the parallel
at the point at which the land frontier of the States concerned
reaches the sea'. This agreement followed, and was consistent
with, concordant unilateral proclamations made by Chile and
Peru in 1947in which each State claimed a maritime zone of at
least 200 nautical miles."l
4. Even though Chile daims ta base itself on "the ordinary meaning" of the clear
textl of the Declaration of Santiago, it is confronted with major difficulties
in using this instrument ta that end since the Declaration says nothing
which can be interpreted as the will of the participating States ta delimit the
maritime boundary between Peru and Chile. The Declaration established
the guidelines for a common maritime policy of the signatory States with
a primarily economic purpose J• Its point II is clearly and manifestly only
devoted to proclaiming as a nonn of the signatory States' international
maritime policy that they each possess a zone of sovereignty extending
200 nautical miles from their coasts without any mention of delimitation
between them; point IV concerns, on the one hand, the entitlement of
islands to a maritime zone and, on the other hand, the limits of the maritime
zone of certain islands. But the Parties to the present case agree that there
is no relevant island as far as their maritime boundary is concerned, thus
rendering point IV irrelevant as between Peru and Chile.
Counter-Memorial of the Government ofChile (hereinafter"CCM"),para. 1.3 (bold letters in the
original; footnotes omitted).
See e.g., CCM, paras. 2.6, 2.223 and 4.10-4.16.
See Memorial ofthe Government ofPeru (hereinafier "PM"), para. 4.67. 3
5. Chile is conscious of theweakness of its textual andcontextual argument based
on the Declaration of Santiago, and it puts the emphasis on "[s]ubsequent
agreements between Chile and Peru, as well as the two States' unilateral and
bilateral practice"4:
"Bath States acknowledged that boundary in their subsequent
agreements and practice. This historical continuum is crucial ta
a proper understanding of the Parties' agreed boundary."~
Not only does such an approach nat confinn the "ordinary meaning" of the
Declaration of Santiago, but also Chile bases itself on an overly extensive
definition of the relevant "subsequent agreements and practice", as Peru will
show again in this Reply6.
6. In the first place, the boundary which is supposed ta have been fixed by the
Declaration of Santiago turns out under Chile's thesis ta he the result nat of
one treaty but of the combination of four instruments:
"Chile's case is that Chile and Peru fully and conclusively
delimited their maritime entitlements in the Santiago
Declaration of 1952. That treaty is to he read together with the
Lima Agreement cf 1954, and in the context cf the concordant
proclamations made by the Parties in 1947."7
Following Chile's argument, the delimitation process wouldhave started with
unilateral declarations which do not entirely coincide, would have continued
with a provisional declarative instrument containing general principles of
CCM, para 3.3.
CCM, para 4.1.
See Chapters III and IV ofthis Reply (hereinafter "PR") below.
CCM, para. 4.1 (emphasis added). By "the Lima Agreement of 1954" Chile refers to the 1954
Agreement relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone. 4
"policy"8, and would have gane on with an agreement which had a very
specifie purpose and was geographically limited, this all being probative only
if viewed in the very large context of an uncertain subsequent practice.
7. In ather words, according ta Chile, the maritime boundary would have been
drawn implicitly without any clear intent of the interested States ta do so. The
boundary would have emerged from a practice "confinning" a delimitation,
the date and origin of which remain indetenninate.
8. Itis indeedstriking howmuch Chilerelies on "assumptions", "presuppositions"
and "implications" ta make its case. Ta give an example, according ta Chile,
point IV of the Declaration of Santiago - the basis on which the whole Chile' s
case rests - can only be interpreted on the basis of a "presupposition":
"Stated differently, the use of parallels of latitude ta bruit the
zone of an 'island or group of islands' presupposes, and may 1Je
explained oruy on the basis, that the general maritime zones are
also delimited by the same p:rrallels oflatitude.''''
More generally, and more fundamentally, Chile infers from the use of the
tracé parallèle method in 1947 by one of the Parties for defining the outer
limit of the 200-nautical-mile zone that the parallel of latitude "must be" the
lateral boundarylO; it assumes that since the Parties have agreed on practical
The word is used in point II ofthe Declaration of Santiago: "In the light ofthese circumstances,
the Governments ofChile, Ecuador and Pern proclaim as anonn oftheir international maritime
polie] that they each possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea along the coasts
of their respective countries to a minimum distance of 200 nantical miles from these coasts."
(emphasis added). (Spanish text: "Como consecuencia de estos hechos, los Gobiernos de Chile,
Ecuador y Peru proclaman coma nonna de su politiea internacional maritima, la soberania y
jurisdicci6n exclusivas que ada uno de ellos corresponde sobre el mar que bafia las costas de
sus respectivos paises, hasta una distancia minima de 200 millas marinas desde las referidas
costas." (Emphasis added» PM, Annex 47.
CCM, para. 2.82 (emphasis added).
CCM, para. 2.34. 5
arrangements concerning coastal fishing activities, they have, by the same
token, accepted or "confinned" an all-purpose boundary between their
respective maritime domains 1; and Chile even concedes that "a number of
authors have taken the view that the Santiago Declaration set farth, or ai
least implied, daims ta 200M territorial seas"ll.
9. It therefore appears that, faute de mieux, Chile is reduced ta building an
"interpretative case" which is hardly appropriate ta establish a daim of an
all-purpose maritime boundary fixed once and for all, almost 60 years aga
by an instrument alleged ta have clearly established a boundary in its own
tenns according ta their ordinary meaning. Moreover, this interpretation
itself isased on a very wide conception of the "context" of nat only one
but four instruments, whose legal nature is questionable, and which have
no relevance for delimitation matters. It is based on audacious assumptions,
presuppositions and implications.
10. The Chilean way of building its case has deeper implications: it is simply
unsustainable that a maritime boundary - that is a line which is supposed to
define the respective areas over which the signatories of the Declaration of
Santiago enjoy sovereignty and jurisdiction - could result from an alleged
practice implying or presupposing its existence.
Il. In this respect, it may be recalled that, in connection with issues relating to
the land boundary between two States, the Court has noted "that the theory
of historical consolidation is highly controversial and cannot replace the
established modes of acquisition of title under internationallaw, which take
CCM, para 3.3. See also CCM, Figure 21"Boundary implied by Peru's report ofthe Diez Canseco
incident" (1%6), plotted on an extract ofPernvian Chart 325 (emphasis added).
CCM, para 2.71 (emphasis added). 6
into account many ather important variables of fact and law ."13 What is true
for land boundaries, also holds true for maritime delimitation - and all the
more sa, given that:
(a) While the land boundary, by necessity, must exist, it is acceptable, and
quite frequent in practice, ta leave maritime areas undelimited; and
(h) Effectivités, which can play a subsidiary function in the delimitation of
a land boundary absent a clear title, have a much reduced raIe in the
establishment of maritime boundaries 14.
12. The cavalier legal construction offered by Chile is clearly unacceptable as a
matter of principle in any event since it cannat he envisaged that a maritime
(or a land) boundary would he drawn "by chance", according ta the vagaries
of tluctuating and uncertain practices. In the present case, this approach is
even more extraordinary in sa far as it implies that Peru wouldhave accepted
that its maritime domain was amputated by not less than 118,467 square
kilometr -e slt~out any express consent and, actually, without realizing it
LandandMaritime Boundary between CameroonandNigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria: Equatorial
Guinea intervening), Judgment lC.J. Reports 2002, p. 352, para 65.
See e.g.:Arbitration between Barbadosand the Republic ofTrinidad and Tobago, relating to the
delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelfbetween tDecision of
11 April 2006, United Nations Reports ofInternationArbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol. XXVII,
p. 242, para. 366. See alsNorth Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, lC.J. Reports1969, p. 51,
para. 96;Fisheriescase, (United Kingdom v.Norway), Judgment of December18th, 1951:lC.J.
Reports 1951, p. 132Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v.1celand), Merits, Judgment,
lC.J. Reports 1974, p. 22, para 49Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic ofGermany v.
1celand), Merits, Judgment, lC.J. Reports 1974, p. 191, para 41. See alsContinental Shelf
(Tunisia/LibyanArab Jamahiriya), Judgment, lC.J. Reports1982, pp. 66-67, para. 87.
See PM, Figure 6.10, at p. 241. 7
at all- and it ignores, as between the Parties, that the Declaration of Santiago
expressis verbis recognizes that-
"they each possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the
sea along the coasts of their respective countries ta a minimum
distance of 200 nautical miles from these coasts."16
Spanish text reads as follows:
"la soberania y jurisdicci6n exclusivas que a cacIa Ulla de ellas
corresponde sobre el mar que OOiialas costas de sus respectivos
Plises, hasta una distancia minima de 200 millas marinas desde
las referidas costas."
13. Not only is such an approach legally inaccurate and grounded on completely
untenable assumptions, it is also fundamentally contemptuous in that it
assumes that Peru would have accepted such an unbalanced delimitation by
which it would have ceded a huge part of its maritime domain. In ather words,
nat only does the Chilean line constitute in itself an inequitable delimitation
depriving Peru of a huge maritime area over which Peru enjoys sovereign
rights and jurisdiction, but Chile also denies that Peru is entitled to a large
part of its maritime domain which lies within 200 nautical miles from its own
coast (and therefore is not part of the high seas), but is beyond that distance
from Chile's coast (this is the "outer triangle"), and over which Chile cannot
have any daim whatsoever.
14. This disregard for Peru's rights is also apparent in another remarkable aspect
of the Chilean Counter-Memorial, which does notmake any attempt to discuss
the line proposed by Peru in confonnity with the well-established principles
1952 Declaration of Santiago, point II. PM, Annex 47. 8
of the law of the sea. Disdainful as it is, this silence could he interpreted as
a haughty concem for consistency - in that it might seem in line with the
(erroneous) position of Chile that the boundary has been agreed. But the real
reason is most probably nat this one; it lies more in the refus al by Chile ta
discuss the flagrant and fundamental inequity of the line it daims in contrast
with the equitable character of Peru's line, which is based on the principle
of equidistance and, in the absence of any special circumstance, allocates ta
each Party an equal part of the natural resources of the disputed area without
cutting off the respective coasts and harbours of the Parties from their access
ta the high seas.
15. Chile's case is also artificial in that it lnvents a non-existing dispute by putting
into question the long-standing agreement between the Parties concerning
the endpoint of the land boundary (Point Concordia - i.e., the starting-point
of the sea boundary to he decided by the Court) that Chile now assimilates
with the first marker on the land boundary (Hito No. 1). This is in clear
contradiction with the explicit tenns of the Treaty for the Seulement of the
Dispute Regarding Tacna and Arica, and its Additional Protocol (hereinafter
"1929 Treaty of Lima")l7 and the 1930 demarcation process.
16. Artificiality, disingenuousness and inequity: these are the fundamental traits
characterising the Chilean thesis as exposed in the Counter-Memorial.
II. Peru and the Law of the Sea
17. In its Counter-Memorial Chile also tries to distort the real nature of Peru's
200-nautical-mile maritime domain.
Treaty for the Seulement ofthe Dispute Regarding Tacna and Arica, with Additional Proto col,
signed on 3 June 1929.M, Annex 45. 9
18. Peru, like Chile, tookan active part in the process of the creation of the modem
law of the sea. Bath countries were amongst the pioneers in the poliey of
daims that led ta the general acceptance of the coastal State's maritime rights
extending up ta a distance of 200 nautical miles from its coast. That principle
responds ta the interest of coastal States ta preserve, explore and exploit the
resources of the sea adjacent ta their coasts in that extend for the benefit of
their people. The recognition in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (hereinafter "1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea") of
coastal States' sovereign rights over the exclusive economic zone andover the
continental shelf -legally defined and, for the essential part, nat conditioned
by its geomorphology - constituted a victory for Peru and the ather American
South Pacifie States 18•
19. Peru's consistent position, stated in the Third United Nations Conference
on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter "UNCLOS III"), is that, in absence of
any special circumstance, the delimitation of the territorial sea, exclusive
economic zone and continental shelf between adjacent States should be made
by means of an equidistance line, in order to reach an equitable result lO•
See Joint Declaration ofthe Representatives ofChile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru at the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, 28 April 1982. PM, Annex 108.
In the framework ofWorking Group 7 on the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf of UNCLOS III, Peru submitted the following infonnal proposals: NG7/6
(24 April 1978). PR, Annex 61; NG7/14 (8 May 1978). PR, Annex 63; NG7/34 (6 April 1979).
PR, Annex 64; NG7/36 (11 April 1979, together with Mexico). PR, Annex 67; and NG7/36/
Rev.1 (18 April 1979, together with Mexico). PR, Annex 68. The discussions on said proposais
can be found in: Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea Negotiating Group
th th
7, Meetings: 5 (25 April 1978), p. 2. PR, Annex 62; 37 (6 April 1979), p. 8. PR, Annex 65;
38 (6 April 1979), pp. 2-3. PR, Annex 66; 4F (18 April 1979), pp. 15-16. PR, Annex 69; and
th
50 (17 August 1979), p. 7. PR, Annex 70. It is also worth noting the Declaration of the Head
of the Peruvian Delegation, Ambassador Alfonso Arias-Schreiber at the 139 Plenary Meeting
ofUNCLOS III, 27 August 1980. Official Records of the Third United Nations Conférence on
the Law of the Sea, Vol. XIV, para 164, document A/CONF.62/SR.139. PM, Annex 107. See
also: Statement of the Head of the Pernvian Delegation, Ambassador Alfonso Arias-Schreiber,
nd
at the 182 Plenary Meeting ofUNCLOS III, 30 April 1982. United Nations, Official Records
of the Third United Nations Conference on the WW of the Sea, Vol. XVI, para 88, document
A/CONF.62/SR.182. PR, Annex 71. 10
20. In view of the new maritime zones that were being discussed in UNCLOS III,
the 1978-1979 Peruvian Constituent Assembly adopted a flexible wording
for referring ta the maritime area adjacent ta Peru's coast. The notion of
"maritime domain" enshrined in the 1979 Political Constitution of Peru
represents a general concept that cannat he understood as a 200-nautical
mile territorial sea. Following intense debates, this position was officially
and openly expressed by Luis Alberto Sanchez, President of the 1978-1979
Constituent Assembly's Principal Commission: ''The State Constitution has
adopted, with great prudence and realism, a flexible formula on our marine
space."lO Equally, Andrés Townsend, President of the Special Commission
for the issues of State, Territory, Nationality and Integration, explained that
the wording adopted in the 1979 Political Constitution was aimed at making it
possible for Peru to be a Party to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea:
"the formula ... maintains the option of adopting the international treaty that
ecumenically defines the rights in the sea."ll
21. The 1993 Political Constitution ofPeru adopted the same principle. According
to Article 54, within its maritime domain - which includes the sea adjacent to
its coasts, as well as the seabed and the subsoil up to a distance of 200 nautical
miles from the baselines - Peru "exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction,
without prejudice to thefreedom of international communications, pursuant to
the law and the treaties ratified by the State."ll In establishing such limitations
to the exercise of the State' rights, the Constitution clearly reveals the nature
of Peru's "maritime domain" in tenns that cannot be equated with the concept
of territorial sea, where third States only have a right of innocent passage.
Sanchez, Luis Alberto: "Sobre las 200 millas", article published in Peruvian Journal Expreso of
23 October 1982, p. 15. PR, Annex 85.
Interview to Andrés Townsend in Peruvian Journal El Comercio of 28 January 1979, p. 4. PR,
Annex 84.
Art. 54,ara 3 of the Political Constitution of Peru of 1993. (Spanish text: "ejerce soberania y
jurisdicci6n, sin perjuiciolas libertades de comunicaci6n internacional, de acuerdo con la ley
y con los tratados ratificados el Estado."). PM, Annex 19. 11
22. In this connection, it is worth mentioning that the nature of the "maritime
domain" was underscored in the Report on Oceans and the law of the sea
addressed in October 1998 by the Secretary-General of the United Nations
ta the General Assembly. The Report emphasizes that this concept is nat
comparable ta the territorial sea because Peru's maritime domain includes the
express recognition of the freedom of international communications. Itreads
as follow:
"One Latin American State, a non-party ta the Convention,
daims a single 200-nautical-mile area called a 'maritime
cbmain' expressly recognizing freeooms of navigation and
overflight beyond 12miles. For this reason, the maritime area of
that Stateis listedin a sep:rrate category under 'athers' insteadof
being classified as a territorial sea {Xtending beyond 12nautical
miles."lJ
23. In :May 2001 the President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, submitted Peru's accession to the
1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea to the Congress for approval. This
was possible due to the flexible nature of Peru's "maritime domain" as
24
established in the Constitution of 1993 •This request is under analysis by the
Peruvian Congress and it has been the subject of discussions by the Congress
Committees of Foreign Affairs and Constitutional Affairs.
24. Peruvian law is also consistent with intemationallaw when it refers to 200
nautical miles of "jurisdictional waters" and not to "territorial waters" or
Report of the Secretary-Generalon Oceans and the law of the sea, 5 October 1998. In: United
Nations, General Assembly, Fifty-Third Session, agenda item 3(a),document A/53/456. PR,
Annex 73.
See Official LeUer RE (TRA) No. 3-0/74 of30 May 2001, from the President ofthe Council of
Ministers andMinister of Foreign Affairs of Pern to the President ofthe Congress. PR, Annex 15.
See also Supreme Resolution No. 231-200l-RE of28 May 2001. PR, Annex 14. 12
"territorial sea". The General Fisheries Law of 1992 refers ta the resources
existing "in the jurisdictional waters" of Peru and contains provisions on the
fisheries management, extraction, maximum catch allowed and share on
surplus, scientific research, and fishing by foreign flag vessels, which are
fully consistent with the provisions of the 1982 Convention on the Law
of the Sea relating ta the exclusive economic zone, in particular articles
62 and 631~.
25. Furthennore, at the multilaterallevel, it must he pointed out that a number
of instruments ta which Peru isa party allude ta the 1982 Convention on the
16
Law of the Sea as a reference framework •At the same time, it is important ta
note that several bilateral treaties concluded by Peru refer ta the existence of
maritime areas under the "sovereignty" or "sovereign rights and jurisdiction"
7
of Peru in accordance with international and domestic law- •
See in particular Articles 2, 8 and 9 of Law Decree No. 25977 of7 December 1992, General
Fisheries Law.PR, Annex 11.
Sorne examples are the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fanna
andFlora(CITES), 1973; International Convention on Maritime Search andRescue (SAR), 1979;
International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC),
1990; Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, 1996;
and the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, 2001. Moreover, Peru has
actively participated in the negotiations ofthe Convention on the Conservation and Management
ofHigh Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (OROP), adopted in Auckland, New
Zealand, 2009. Available at: <http://www.southpacificrfmo.org/assets/Convention-and-Final
Act/2353205v2-SPRFMOConvention-textascorrectedApriI2010afiersignatureinF
ebrnary20
lOforcertificationApriI2010.pdf>accessed 8 October 2010. Peru signed OROP and deposited
a declaration recognizing the application of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea as
international customary law. Pern's declaration also contains a disclaimer regarding maritime
boundaries.
Illustrative examples ofthis point are: Peru-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, 2006.
PR, Annex 40; Free Trade Agreement between the Govemment of the Republic of Pern and
Canada, 2008. PR, Annex 42; Free Trade Agreement between the Government ofthe Republic
ofPeru and the Govemment of the Republic ofSingapore, 2008. PR, Annex 43; and Free Trade
Agreement between the Government ofthe Republic of Pern and the Government ofthe People's
Republic of China, 2009. PR, Annex 44. 13
26. For example, the Free Trade Agreement between Peru and Chile of 2006
defines Peruvian territory as comprising: "the mainland territory, the islands,
the maritime spaces, and the airspace above them, under its sovereignty or
sovereign rights and jurisdiction, in accordance with international law and
its domestic law"18. This definition, in a bilateral treaty concluded between
Peru and Chile, is particularly relevant since Chile recognizes that Peru
enjoys sovereignty and sovereign rights and jurisdiction in accordance with
its Political Constitution and international customary law, in the spaces
corresponding ta its maritime domain. It is worth noting that this Agreement
superseded the 2000 Agreement on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of
Investments between both countries, which provided: '''Territory' comprises,
in addition ta the areas lying within the land boundaries, the adjacent
maritime zones and the air space in which the Contracting Parties exercise
sovereignty and jurisdiction, in accordance with their respective legislations
and intemationallaw"lo.
ill. Historical Background
27. Peru disagrees with the Chilean assertion that the historical background
predating the 1929 Treaty of Lima included in the Memorial is irrelevant to
this case. For Peru, it is a fundamental fact to be underscored that when it
gained its independence, it did not share boundaries with Chile. Therefore, it
Free Trade Agreement between the Government ofthe Republic of Pern and the Government of
the Republic of Chile, signed on 22 August 2006, entered into force on 1 March 2009. Article
2.2:Paragraph (a). (Spanish text: "Articulo 2.2: Definici6n Especifica por Pais. Territorio
significa: (a) con respecto al Peru, el territorio continental, las islas los espacios maritimos y
el espacio aéreo bajo suoberania 0 derechos de soberania y jurisdicci6nde acuerdo con el
derecho internacional y el derecho nacional"). PR, Annex 41.
Agreement between the Govemment ofthe Republic of Pern and the Government ofthe Republic
ofChile on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection ofInvestments, signed on 2Febrnary 2000,
entered into force on 3 August 2001. Article 1. para 3. (Spanish text: '''Territorio' designa,
ademâs de las âreas enmarcadas en los limites terrestres, las zonas maritimas adyacentes y el
espacio aéreo en los cuales lastes Contratantes ejercen soberaniay jurisdicci6n, de acuerdo
a sus respectivas legislaciones y al derecho internacional."). PR, Annex 39. 14
resulted of paramount importance ta analyse the circumstances leading both
countries ta heneighbours on account of the War of the Pacifie and ta provide
the backgrounds that led ta the 1929 Treaty of Lima, wherein the Peruvian
Chilean land boundary was definitely settled, with Point Concordia being the
starting-point.
28. The historical background provided by the Memorial also demonstrated that,
along the history of the bilateral relations, the commitments that Chile had
made towards Peru in the 1929 Treaty of Lima were fulfilled only seven
decades laterJ().
29. Peru dissents with Chile's interpretation on certain historical events. On this
respect, Peru's position has been clearly stated in its Memorial, thus, it is nat
necessary ta address this issue again.
IV. General Outline of the Reply
30. Chapter 1 of this Reply deals briefly with the questions of jurisdiction and
admissibility of the Peruvian Application that Chile raises in its Counter
Memorial without drawing clear consequences from them. It shows that as a
result of trying to establish thatPeru's claims are excludedfrom the jurisdiction
of the Court or that the Application is inadmissible in sorne respect, Chile-
(a) incorrectly asserts there is no dispute between the Parties as to the very
existence (and, consequently and a fortiori, the direction) of the
boundary between the maritime areas over which they exercise
sovereign rights and jurisdiction;
PM, paras. 1.32-1.37. 15
(h) misinterprets bath Article VI of the American Treaty on Pacifie
Seulement (hereinafter "Pact of Bagat,l") and Peru's case; and
(c) wrongly puts into question the very notion of Peru's maritime domain.
31. In Chapter II, Peru answers Chile's artificial new argument concerning the
starting- point for the maritime delimitation which is, on its face, incompatible
with the 1929 Treaty of Lima, the wark of the Peruvian-Chilean Limits
Demarcation Joint Commission (hereinafter "Joint Commission") and its
Final Act of 21 July 1930, and the subsequent practice of the Parties. It shows
in particular that any maritime boundary between the Parties cannat start from
the first Boundary Marker erected by that Commission in 1930 (Bita No. 1)
but rather must start from the intersection of a lO-kilometre radius arc centred
upon the bridge over the river Lluta with the seashore (Point Concordia).
32. Chapter III addresses the core argument of Chile according to which the 1952
Declaration of Santiago would have "fully and conclusively delimited [the
signatories' respective] maritime entiùements"Jl. It discusses the genesis and
legal nature of that instrument in itself and in relation with the previous (but
not entirely concordant) claims issued by the two Parties in 1947, and provides
an in depth analysis of its content. This analysis shows unequivocally that the
Declaration can in no way be viewed as a boundary agreement.
33. Moreover, as shown in Chapter IV, even though the Declaration of Santiago
has come to be considered as a treaty, the practice of the Parties after 1952,
including the six agreements concluded at the Lima Conference in 1954, does
not change the picture: no maritime boundary has been agreed between Chile
and Peru, as is confinned by Chile's own practice including its response to
See para 6 above. 16
Peru's 1986 invitation ta negotiate such a boundary. The cartographie material
corroborates this conclusion.
34. Chapter V reiterates Peru's views as ta the principles applicable ta the
delimitation of the maritime boundary between the Parties and explains why,
in the absence of any special clrcumstance, it should follow the equidistance
line. In sharp contrast with the Chileanline, whichfollows aparallel oflatitude,
the boundary proposed by Peru fully satisfies the test of proportionality and
achieves an equitable re.mIt.
35. Chapter VI revisits Peru's submission conceming its entitlement ta a
maritime domain extending up ta 200 nautical miles from its own coast
(including the "outer triangle", which is situated beyond 200 nautical miles
from Chile's coasts), in accordance with the modem intemationallaw of the
sea and shows that it is an entirely appropriate and well-founded submission,
which stands on its own. This chapter further demonstrates that Chile can
have no claim whatsoever over this outer triangle.
36. In accordance with the Court's PracticeDirection II, Chapter VII of this Reply
provides a short summary ofPeru's reasoning in the case.
37. Following the Summary in Chapter VII, Peru presents its Submissions. In
accordance with Article 50 of the Rules of the Court, Peru's Reply also
contains one (1)volume of documentary annexes (Volume II) together with a
volume of maps and figures (Volume III). A list of documentary annexes and
of the maps and figures appears after Peru's Submissions as well as a list of
documents filed with the Court's Registry in accordance with Article 50(2) of
the Rules of the Court. CHAPTERI
JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY
1. Introduction
1.1 Chile does nat fonnally raise objections ta the jurisdiction of the Court or
the admissibility of Peru's Application; nOf do Chile's submissions daim
that the Court is without jurisdiction or that the Application is inadmissible.
However, it devotes a full section of the Introduction of its Counter-Memorial
ta discussing "Issues of Jurisdiction and Admissibility" in which it contends
that "Peru's Pleaded Case Seeks ta Reopen :Matters Agreed in Treaties"Jl and,
in sorne respect, Chile's Submission (h) (i) echoes that contention]].
1.2 According ta Chile:
Peru has contrived a dispute;
Article VI of the Pact of Bogota excludes any issues regarding the land
border from the jurisdiction of the Court; and
CCM, Chapter l, Section 5, paras. 1.60-1.76.
TI
"Chile respectfully requests the Court to ... (b) ADJUDGE AND DECLARE that: (i) the
respective maritime zone entitlementshile and Peru have been fully delimited by agreement".
CCM, p. 305. 18
rather obscurely, "Peru's pleaded daims" are inadmissible since they
hear upon Peru's "maritime dominion".
1.3 Although it is nat clear whether these allegations concem issues of jurisdiction
and admissibility properly speaking or belong ta the merits, Peru will briefly
show in the present chapter that none of them bars the jurisdiction of the
Court or renders Peru' s daims inadmissible. The substantive issues linked
with each of these points will he dealt with in subsequent chapters.
II. Chile's Allegation that "Peru Has Contrived a Dispute"
1.4 Chile alleges that "Peru' s application ta the Court in the present case is the
culmination ofPeru's recent attempts ta unsettlean agreedmaritime boundary .
... There is no bona fide dispute here. Peru simply willed a controversy into
being by unilaterally denying that an agreed delimitation has been effected by
the Santiago Declaration and confinned by the Lima Agreement."J4
1.5 Although Chile does not draw any conclusion from these grave assertions,
they are made under a sub-section entitled "Issues of Jurisdiction and
Admissibility". It may be laying the ground for saying that there is no dispute
between the Parties in the legalsense and that, therefore, the Court has no
jurisdiction in accordance with Article 36 of its Statute.
1.6 These purely self-serving allegations do not deserve a long rebuttal- atleast
at this stage: they will be disproved as necessary in the subsequent chapters of
this Reply which are devoted to discussing the substance of the case since one
CCM, para. 1.60.
See the well known definition ofa dispute in The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case:
"A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests
between twopersons". Judgment of30 August 1924, P.C.IJ., SeriesA, No. 2, p. 11. 19
of the main subject-matters of the dispute precisely is ta detennine whether
the Parties have agreed ta delimit their respective maritime areas by the
Declaration of Santiago. Chile's case is that they have; Peru's case is that
they have nat (and, indeed, they have nat, as will he shawn below).
1.7 It is certainly true that"it is nat sufficient for one party ta a contentions case
ta assert that a dispute exists with the ather party. A mere assertion is nat
sufficient ta praye the existence of a dispute any more than amere denial of the
existence of the dispute proves its nonexistence"J:l and that "[w]hether there
exists an international dispute is a matter for objective detennination"J7. But,
in the present case, there can heno doubt that "the Parties are in disagreement,
both on the law and on the facts"J8,on the question whether the Declaration of
Santiago constitutes a maritime boundary agreement.
1.8 As a matter of fact, Peru and Chile have a major disagreement regarding the
nature and the purpose of the Declaration of Santiago. In the Memorial, Peru
has shown that the Declaration of Santiago was conceived as an international
maritime policy instrument. It served primarily an economic objective and
focused on the protection of the natural resources of the three participating
States. For this purpose the Declaration of Santiago asserted the existence of
a 200-nautical-mile maritime zone of exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction.
1.9 In its Counter-Memorial, Chile has taken a fundamentally different view.
According to Chile, the Declaration of Santiago is a multilateral treaty that
constitutes a maritime boundary agreement establishing lateral maritime
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment of21 December 1962:lC.J. Reports 1962, p. 328.
Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion: lC.J. Reports1950, p. 74. See alsCase
Concerning the Land, Islandand Maritime Frontier Dispute (El &lvador/Honduras: Nicaragua
intervening), Judgment ofli September 1992, lC.J. Reports 1992, p. 555, para 326.
East Timor (Portugal v.Australia), Judgment, lC.J. Reports1995, p. 100, para 22. 20
boundaries between the tbree participating States. Chile asserts that the
lateral delimitation of the maritime boundary between the participants
was "within the abject and purpose of the Santiago Declaration.");) It further
contends that the alleged maritime boundary follows "the parallel at the point
at which the land frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea"40partially
quoting point IV of the Declaration of Santiago.
1.10 Moreover, the existence of a legal dispute between the Parties has been
fonnally acknowledged by their respective :Ministers of Foreign Affairs in
2004 in a Joint Communiqué:
'We, the :Ministers of Foreign Affairs have reiterated that the
subject of maritime delimitation Œtween both countries, in
respect of which we have different positions, isa question of
juridical nature and it strictly constitutes a bilateral issu.''11
1.11 According ta Chile there is "no bona fide dispute here" since Peru has
"simply willed a controversy into being by unilaterally denying that an agreed
delimitation has been effected by the Santiago Declaration and confinned by
the Lima Agreement.''41Although it is of littlehelp to accuse the other party in
legal proceedings of acting mala fide, Peru could all too well make the same
accusation against Chile: there is, indeed no bona fide dispute here, since
Chile, after having indicated that it would carry out studies on this matter4 J,
at a late stage and artificially built a case according to which there exists a
boundary line accepted by Peru to its considerable disadvantage without ever
having consented to it.
CCM, para 4.22.
CCM, para 1.3.
Joint Communiqué of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Peru and Chile, Rio de Janeiro, 4
November 2004. PM, Annex 113.
CCM, para 1.60. See footnote 7 above.
See the Official Communiqué from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile of 13 June 1986.
PM, Annex 109. 21
ill.Peru's Claims Are Not Excluded from Reference to the Court
by the Pact of Bogotâ
1.12 The second "jurisdictional point" made by Chile - but nat as a preliminary
objection and perhaps nat as an objection tout court - is as follows -
" the Parties' land boundary, including issues regarding
what Peru now calls 'Point Concordia', are 'matters which
are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of
the conclusion of the [Pact of Bogota]' within the meaning of
Article VI. The land boundary was agreed in 1929 and was
fully determined and marked in 1930, well before 1948. The
Pact of Bogota does nat permit Peru ta agitate these long
closed matters before the Court.'>14
1.13 This argument is based on distortions, on the one hand, of Article VI of the
Pact of Bogota (A.) and, on the ather hand, ofPeru's argument (B.).
A. CHILE'S DIsTORTION OF ARTICLE VI OF TIIEPACT OF BOGOTÂ
1.14 Article VI of the Pact of Bogota apphes inter alia to issues that "are governed
by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present
Treaty" (that is 30 April 1948)4 This is precisely what the 1929 Treaty of
Lima and the 1930 agreement to detennine the boundary lille and place the
corresponding boundary markers (hereinafter "1930 Identical Instructions")46
do in the present case by providing that the land boundary starts at Point
Concordia, a point located "ten kilometres northwest from the first bridge
CCM, para 1.71 (footnotes omitted).
Pact ofBogota, Art. VI. PM, Annex 46.
Agreement to Detennine the Boundary Line and Place the Corresponding Boundary Markers at
the Points in Disagreement in the Peruvian-Chilean Limits Demarcation Joint Commission of24
April 1930 (Identical Instructions Sent to the Delegates). PM, Annex 87. 22
over the River Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway"47. But it does nat provide
the answer ta the question as ta what are the precise co-ordinates of Point
Concordia which Chile seeks ta put in issue. In ather words, the 1929-1930
land delimitation and demarcation process addresses the question of the
starting-point of the land boundary. However, Chile's new position consists
in challenging that the 1929-1930 cornillon decisions setde the question of its
precise location.
1.15 In this respect, the present case can usefully be compared with the Nicaragua
v. Colombia case, in that there the Court noted that the 1928 Treaty
conceming Territorial Questions at Issue between Colombia and Nicaragua
expressly recognized the sovereignty of Colombia over the islands of San
Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina but also, more vaguely, over "ather
islands, islets and cays that fonn part of the Archipelago of San Andrés"48.
However, the Court went on to state "that it is clear on the face of the text
of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the 1928 Treaty that its terms do not
provide the answer ta the question as ta which maritime features apart from
the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalinaform part of the
San Andrés Archipelago over which Colombia has sovereignty.''4Oln other
words, according to the Court in that case, the 1928 Treaty had addressed
the question of the sovereignty over the San Andrés Archipelago but had
not settled the question of its precise composition. For this reason, the Court
considered that "thismatter has not been settled within the meaning of Article
VI of the Pact of Bogotâ and [it] has jurisdiction under Article XXXI of the
Pact of Bogota.":50Similarly, in the present case, given that Chile has recently
Final Act of the Commission ofLimits Containing the Description ofPlaced Boundary Markers
of 21 July 1930. PM, Annex 54. See also Article 2 ofthe 1929 Treaty of Lima PM, Annex 45.
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
lC.J. Reports 2007, p. 855, para 66.
• Ibid., p. 863, para 97 (emphasis added).
Ibid. (Emphasis added). 23
put into question the precise location of Point Concordia, it has raised a dispute
between Peru and Chile conceming the co-ordinates of the starting-point of
the land boundary - which correspond ta the starting-point of the maritime
boundary - and the Court has jurisdiction ta setde it under Article XXXI of
the Pact of Bogota notwithstanding the final delimitation and demarcation of
the land boundary of 1929-1930.
1.16 Although Article VI of the Pact of Bogota excludes from the Court's
jurisdiction decisions on "matters ... which are govemed by agreements or
treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty" (that is
30 April 1948), it does nat prevent the Court from applying or interpreting
a treaty, whatever the date of its entry into force. Article :XXXI is worded in
clear terms and reads as follows:
"In confonnity with Article 36, p:rragraph 2, of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice, the High Contracting Parties
declare that they recognize, in relation to any other American
State, the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory ipso facto,
without the necessity of any special agreement so long as the
present Treaty is in force, in all disputes of a juridical nature that
arise among them conceming:
a) The interpretation of a treaty .. ."
This provision must he appropriately interpreted.
1.17 Moreover, in the case conceming the Territorial and A1aritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia), the Court considered that-
"... itisclear on the face of the text of Article 1 that the matter
of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia and
Santa Catalina has heen settled by the 1928 Treaty within the 24
meaning of Article VI of the Pact of Bogota. In the Court's view
there is no need ta go further into the interpretation of the Treaty
ta reach that conclusion and there isnothing relating ta this issue
that could he ascertained only on the merits."51
A contrario, this seems ta show that had there been a need ta "go further into
the interpretation" of the 1928 Treaty between Colombia and Nicaragua, the
Court would have decided that it had jurisdiction ta do sa notwithstanding
Article VI of the Pact of Bogota.
1.18 In the present case, Peru in no way calls into question the land delimitation
which was agreed between the Parties when they concluded the 1929 Treaty of
Lima and demarcated the following year; on the contraI)" in its Memorial, Peru
51
fully acknowledged its crucial importance as a land border agreement •Nor
does Peru abject ta the co-ordinates of Boundary Marker No. 1 (Hito No. 1),
naI that iis the boundary marker closest to the sea. On thesepoints, which were
decided in 1929 and 1930, there is no dispute between the Parties. What Peru
cannot accept is the identification of Boundary Marker No. 1 as the starting
point of the land boundary, which clearly is not in accordance with the 1929
Treaty of Lima and the agreement reached by the two Governments during the
process of demarcation. In this regard, the starting-point of the land boundary is
Point Concordia, as established in the 1929 Treaty of Lima. In other words, the
dispute now brought before the Court is not on matters which had been settled
by agreements or treaties which had entered in force before 1948 but, rather,
on Chile's putting nowadays into question the settlement agreed at the time
between the Parties.
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colomhia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
lC.J. Reports 2007, p. 861, para 88.
PM, paras. 1.32-1. 37. 25
B. CHILE'S DISTORTION OF PERu's CASE
1.19 According ta Chile:
"Peru's pleaded case requires the Court ta pronounce on one
matter which the States parties ta the Pact of Bogotâ did nat
intend ta include within the jurisdiction of the Court, and which
thePact expressly excludes from reference ta the Court. That
matter is the Parties' agreed boundar Jy."
Such an allegation is a complete distortion ofPeru's case.
1.20 Peru maintains that, as it made clear in its Applicatiand itsMemori~ al
and as will he shawn again in Chapter II of this Reply, the endpoint of the
land boundary - which is, by necessity, the starting-point of the maritime
boundary - has been definitely detennined by the 1929-1930 agreements.
Therefore, the Court can only take note of the fact that the maritime boundary
Iille must start at "Point Concordia" defined as the intersection with the low-
water mark of an arc with a lO-kilometre radius, having as its centre the first
bridge over the River Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway.
1.21 However, it is now clear from Chile's Counter-Memorial, that Chile seeks
to challenge the agreement of the Parties regarding the endpoint of the land
boundary when they agreed on the delimitation of their land boundary by
the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the 1930 Identical Instructions :5.6Therefore,
for the sake of argument, Peru, while maintaining its view that this alleged
CCM , para 1.61.
Application instituting proceedings ofthe Republic ofPeru, filed before the I.C.J. on 16 January
2008, para 11.
PM, para 6.46.
See CCM , para 1.61 and PM, para 6.46. 26
dispute has been settled, will answer Chile's argument, keeping in mind that,
in reality, Peru has nat raised any land dispute, but that it is Chile itself which
puts into question the land seulement agreed upon at the time.
1.22 In the first place, it is ta he noted that Chile insistently refers ta "Peru's new
Point Concordia B." ~oing sa, itisclear that Chile would like ta have the
Court think that said point has been invented by Peru in view of the present
case. This isa gross distortion of the truth.
1.23 Withrespect ta Point Concordia, Article 2 of the 1929 Treaty of Lima provides
as follows:
"The territory of Tacna and Arica shaH he divided into two
portions of which Tacna, shaH he allotted ta Peru and Arica
ta Chile. The dividing line between the two portions, and
consequently the frontier between the territories of Chile
and Peru, shaH start from a point on the coast to he named
'Concordia', ten kilometres to the north of the bridge over the
river Lluta.":58
Spanish text reads as follows:
"El territorio de Tacna y Arica sera dividicb en dos partes, Tacna
para el Peru y Arica p:rra Chile. La linea divisoria entre dichas
dos p:rrtesy,en consecuencia, la frontera entre los territorios
del Peru y de Chile, p:rrtirâ de un punto de la costa que se
denominarâ 'Concordia', distante diez kil6metros al Norte deI
puente deI Rio Llutà'.
CCM, para. 1.62. See also CCM, para. 1.66.
Treaty forhe Seulement ofthe Dispute Regarding Tacna and Arica, with Additional Proto col,
signed on 3 June 1929 (emphasis added).Annex 45. 27
1.24 In spite of Chile's conjuring tricks, Point Concordia (agreed by the Parties)
cannat he assimilated ta Bita No. j'W as described in the 1930 Identical
Instructions given by Peru and Chile ta their representatives. As will he shawn
in Chapter II, the instructions given by the two Governments ta the Joint
Commission instructed the Commissioners ta fix the starting-point of the land
boundary on the coast by tracing an arc with a radius of ten kilometres centred
upon the first bridge of the Arica-La Paz railway "running ta intercept the
seashore, sa that any point of the arc measures a distance of 10 kilometres
from the referred bridge of the Arica-La paz railway line over the River
Lluta. This intersection point of the traced arc with the seashore, shaH he the
starting-point of the dividing line between Peru and Chile"; but no boundary
marker was ta be installed in that place: "A boundary marker shaH he placed
at any point of the arc, as close to the sea as allows preventing it from being
destroyed by the ocean waters.''60
1.25 Hito No. 1 cannot therefore be erected on the "point at which the land frontier
of the States concemed reaches the sea" in order to detennine the endpoint of
the land boundary and the starting-point for the maritime delimitation: clearly
it stems from the definition of Hito No. 1 that it is not situated on the seashore
("at the point at which the land frontier reaches the sea"), but "as close to the
sea as allows preventing it from being destroyed by the ocean waters".
1.26 The difference between points and markers was again emphasized in the
Final Act of the Commission of Limits Containing the Description of Placed
61
Boundary Markers, dated 21 July 1930 and agreed by the two Parties •
The "point" is an abstract concept, the geographicallocofthe terminus ofthe land boundary.
Boundary Marker No. 1 (Hito No. 1) is a physical structure. Point Concordia is located at the
southwest ofBoundary MatkerNo. 1.
See the 1930 Identical Instructions. PM, Annex 87.
Final Act ofthe Commission ofLimits Containing the Description ofPlaced Boundary Markers
of21 July 1930. PM, Annex 54. 28
Paragraph 2 of the Final Act gives a broad definition of the demarcated land
frontier. It reads as follows:
"The demarcated boundary line starts from the Pacifie Ocean at
a point on the seashore ten kilometres northwest from the first
bridge over the River Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway, and
ends in the Andean mountain range at Boundary A1arker V of
the former dividing line Œtween Chile and Bolivia.''I:ll
Spanish text reads as follows:
"La linea de frontera demarcada parte deI océano Pacifico en
un punta en la orilla deI mar situado a diez kil6metros hacia
el noroeste del primer puente sobre el rio Lluta de la via férrea
de Arica a La Paz, y termina en la cordillera andina en el hilo
quinto de la antigua linea divisoria entre Chile y Bolivia."
1.27 Itis therefore apparent that:
Point Concordia was agreed as being the point where the land bounelary
meets the sea;
Point Concordia is clearly distinct from the Boundary Marker No. 1
(Hito No. 1);
Hito No. 1 consequently cannot constitute the terminus point of the land
boundary, as Chile contends 6J;
And it follows that Hito No. 1 cannot in any case he used in order to
define "the parallel at the point at which the land frontier of the States
concemed reaches the sea"64 for purposes of maritime delimitation
(under Chile's contention that the Declaration of Santiago delimited
Final Act of the Commission ofLimits Containing the Description ofPlaced Boundary Markers
of21 July 1930.PM, Annex 54. (Emphasis added).
CCM, para. 2.16.
1952 Declarationof Santiago, point IV. PM, Annex 47. 29
such a boundary) because that point lies north of Point Concordia in
exclusively Peruvian territory.
1.28 It must he further noted that the Declaration of Santiago - which, according
taChile, wouldhave fixed the maritime boundary at the parallel of Bita No. 1
- was adopted four years after the Pact of Bogota and this consideration alone
and in itself suffices ta prevent the possibility that Article VI of the latter
could exclude the jurisdiction of the Court.
1.29 In this respect,and this is the second set of remarks which can he made in
relation with the distortion ofPeru' s case by theRespondent, Chile's allegation
according ta which Peru asserts, "for the first time in its Application in 2008,
that the terminal point of the land boundary is nat, after all, the one that was
agreed and demarcated in 1930, i.e., Bita No. 1"6~ a, well as the allegation
that "[u]ntil Peru sought ta unsettle the maritime boundary in recent years,
there was never a dispute about the location of that point .. .'>are baffling.
Indeed the "unsetùer" is Chile, not Peru since it is Chile, not Peru, which
"agitate[s] these long-closed matters before the Court."67
1.30 ln early 2001, the Chilean Navy placed a surveillance booth (caseta de
vigilancia) between Boundary Marker No. 1 and the seashore, in what is
unquestionably Peruvian territory as that territory has been detennined by the
1929 Treaty of Lima and the demarcation process of 1930. This booth was
placed with the aim of reinforcing the position that had been recenùy taken
by Chile, which claimed that the booth had been placed on Chilean territory
south of the boundary which had already been jointly demarcated pursuant
to, among other instruments, the documents signed on 26 April 1968 and 19
CCM, para 1.64 (emphasis added).
CCM, para 1.31.
CCM, para 1.71. 30
68
August 1969. Chile's action immediately elicited a protest from Peru and
the surveillance booth was removectX'.There was no need ta make a similar
protest earlier since there had nat been a similar situation before 2001.
1.31 Later, at the end of 2006, Chile tried ta bring its internal legislation into
line with its newly assumed position on the subject of the terminus point
of the land bounelary by means of an amendmenCo ta the draft law creating
71
the new region of Arica and Parinacota, originally tabled in October 2005 •
The intention was particularly clear since the original cIraftincluded no
reference either ta Boundary Marker No. 1 or ta the parallel of latitude
passing through thatmarker. Again, Peru protestedagainst this amendeddraft
law, because it stipulated that the starting-point of the land boundary was
the intersection with the seashore of the parallel passing through Boundary
Marker No. 1, rather than Point Concordia on the low-water mark. This is
a clear breach of the 1929 Treaty of Lima. Peru requested that its Note of
protest be forwarded to the Constitutional Court of Chile, whose approval
was needed before the draft law could be enacted 7• In January 2007, the
Chilean Constitutional Court declared that the second paragraph of Article
1 of the draft law as amended, which described the terminus in terms of the
abovementioned parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1,
Note (GAB) No. 6/23 of 10 April 2001, from the President of the Council of Ministers and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pern to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile. PR, Annex 75.
Note (GAB) No. 6/25 of 12 April 2001, from the President of the Council of Ministers and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pern to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile. PR, Annex 77.
See footnote 133 below.
See footnote 132 below.
Note (GAB) No. 6/4 of 24 January 2007, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. PR, Annex 80. See also Note (GAB) No No. 6/3 of 10
January 2007, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pern to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Chile. PR, Annex 79. 31
n
was unconstitutional and that it should he eliminatedfrom the draft law .The
law was finally enacted without any reference ta the parallel passing through
Boundary Marker No. F4.
1.32 In any case, as far as the jurisdiction of the Court is concemed, these
considerations are irrelevant. It is certainly true that the calculation of the
co-ordinates of the point at which the land border encls on the basis of the
agreements concluded in 1929-1930 (Point Concordia) has never been
agreed7 How.ever,
this confirms that Chile has manufactured a dispute in this limited
respect since Chile expressly states that it "does nat recognize Peru' s
new Point Concordia"76;
Chile' s recent daim that the terminal point of the land boundary is
Hito No. 1 is inconsistent with the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the wark
of the Joint Commission, which settled the question;
the status quo on the terminus point of the land boundary has been
recently put into question by Chile; and
this alleged dispute on the situation of Point Concordia clearly IS
subsequent to the entry into force of the Pact of Bogota in 1948.
1.33 The substantive discussion of the Chilean allegations on this issue is in
Chapter II of this Reply.
n Judgment-Case No. 719 of 26 January 2007, issued by the ConstitutioCourt of Chile,
regarding Draft Law Creating thxv Region of Arica and Parinacotaand the Province of
Tamarugal, in the Region ofTarapacâPR, Annex 31.
See footnote 136.
See CCM, para 1.62.
Ibid. 32
IV. Chile's Obscure Allegation that "Peru's Pleaded Claims"
Are Inadmissible since They Bear Upon Peru's
''l\laritime Dominion"
1.34 In paragraphs 1.73 ta 1.76 of its Counter-Memorial, Chile endeavours
ta establish the "Inadmissibility of Peru's Pleaded Claims"n. These four
paragraphs are very obscure. On their face, they appear ta hear upon the law
applicable ta the dispute more than upon issues of admissibility: Chile seems
ta deny Peru' s right ta rely "on UNCLOS Articles 74 and 83 as the legal basis
for a delimitation of its 'maritime dominion' [sic],because this is nat a zone
that can he delimited by application of those provisions."78 In any event, as
made clear in Peru' s Memorial, Peru does nat allege that these provisions are
applicable as such; it simply contends that "although nat applicable as treaty
law per se, [they] largely reflect customary intemationallaw."70
1.35 Another possible reading of Chile's allegations in this respect would be that
the customary rules reflectedin theseprovisions bear only upon the continental
shelf and exclusive economic zone and that the notion of maritime domain is
incompatible with the rules in question. Such an allegation - if it is made - is
unsustainable.
1.36 First, there is an absolutecontradiction between affinning that the Declaration
of Santiago validly binds the participants on a supposed date and alleging at
the same time that Peru's claim to a maritime domain is not compliant with
the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea:
n
CCM, pp. 36-37.
CCM, para. 1.73.
PM, para 3.4. 33
80
as Chile itself recalls , the participants in the Declaration of Santiago
proclaimed that "they each possess exclusive sovereignty and
jurisdiction ... ta a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles"81;
this is the initial basis for Peru' s and ChiZe's daims ta a maritime
domain;
therefore there can he only one of two solutions: either these daims
are compatible with the modern law of the sea and Chile's argument
is unfounded; or they are incompatible with the modem law of the
sea and the modem law of the sea prevails over the Declaration of
Santiago - whatever the legal nature of the latter.
1.37 Second, in any case, the notion of maritime domain referred ta in the Peruvian
Constitution is compatible with the existence of varions maritime zones
within it, as is apparent from its text and from the debates of both the 1978-
1979 Constituent Assembly and the 1993 Constituent Congress. As shown
81
in the Introduction of this Reply above , Peru's constitutional and legal
rules clearly acknowledge that the exercise of Peru's sovereign rights over
its maritime space is subject to internationallaw; and this is confirmed by
the Report on Oceans and the law of the sea addressed in October 1998, by
the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the General Assembly which
emphasizes that the notion of maritime domain is not comparable to that of
the territorial sea because it includes the express recognition of the freedom
of international communications 8J•It is also confinned by various agreements
entered into by Peru that, when defining the territory in tenns of geographic
scope of application, expressly state the zones or maritime spaces where Peru
exercises sovereignty or sovereign rights and jurisdiction, in accordance
CCM, para 1.75.
1952 Declaration of Santiago, point II. PM, Annex 47.
See Introduction, paras. 17-26 above. See also Chapter V, in particular paras 5.25-5.27 below.
For the full text ofthe relevant passage, see Introduction, para 22 above. 34
with intemationallaw and its domestic law. Thus (and it is only one example
among many others 84- but it is direcdy relevant conceming Chile), Article
2.2 of the 2006 Free Trade Agreement with Chile provides that:
"Territory means:
(a) With respect ta Peru, the mainland territory, the islands,
the maritime spaces, and the airspace above them, under its
sovereignty or sovereign rights and jurisdiction, in accordance
with intemationallaw and its domestic law"8~.
1.38 Third, it must benoted that, in its Submissions at the end of its Memorial 8,and
reiterated at the end of the present Reply, Peru expressly requests the Court ta
decide on "[t]he delimitation between the respective maritime zones between
the Republic ofPeru and the Republic of Chile" without alluding ta the notion
of maritime domain. And, more specifically in respect ta the outer triangle
(which is nat part of the high seas since it lies within a distance of 200 nautical
miles from Peru's baselines), it requests the Court to adjudge and declare that
"Peru is entitled to exercise exclusive sovereign rights over a maritime area
lying out to a distance of 200 nautical miles from its baselines."
This formula makes clear that Peru claims exclusive sovereign rights and
jurisdiction over the water column, seabed and subsoil to which all States are
entitled by vrrtue of the general rules of modem intemationallaw of the sea
reflected in Articles 74 and 83 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.
See footnote 27 above.
See footnote 28 above.
PM, p. 275. 35
1.39 Fourth and lastly, all these considerations have little ta do with issues of
jurisdiction of the Court or of admissibility of the Application. They clearly
belong ta the substance of the case. And Peru will show in the subsequent
chapters of this Reply that Chile's allegations are unfounded.
1.40 It is therefore apparent that the Court has jurisdiction ta decide fully on all of
the submissions made by Peru and that all Peru's daims are admissible. In
particular -
(a) there is no question of "contriving a dispute": there clearly is a dispute
between Peru and Chile as ta the delimitation of their respective
maritime areas and, in particular on whether or nat the Declaration of
Santiago was defined as a maritime boundary agreement; and
(h) the existence of such a dispute has heen fonnally acknowledged by
Chile;
(c) it is Peru's view that the endpoint of the land boundary (and,
consequently, the starting-point of the maritime delimitation) has
been fixed in 1929-1930; however,
(d) if Chile maintains its view that the terminal point of the land boundary
is Bito No. 1, not Point Concordia, the Court should interpret the
seulement resulting from the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the demarcation
process of 1930 and detennine the real point of departure of the sea
boundary on which the Parties disagree (that is, the emplacement of
"Point Concordia" identified in Article 2 of the 1929 Treaty of Lima
and its precise co-ordinates); however,
(e) the "dispute" between the Parties on this point stems from the recent
challenge by Chile of the seulement of 1929-1930; 36
if) Chile's obscure allegations on Peru's maritime domain are both
unfounded and by no means related ta the "admissibility" of Peru' s
daims. CHAPTERII
THE STARTING-POINT FOR THE MARITIME
DELIMITATION
1. Introduction
2.1 For coastal States that share a cornillon land boundary such as Peru andChile,
it is axiomatic that the delimitation of the maritime boundary starts from the
terminal pointon the land boundary where it meets the sea. Bath Parties agree
that the locationof the terminal point of their land boundary was fixed by
the 1929 Treaty of Lima 8, and demarcated by the Peruvian-Chilean Limits
Demarcation Joint Commission in 1930 following the identical instructions
issued ta it by the two Govemments. However, Chile disputes the fact that
"Point Concordia", which is the name given by the 1929 Treaty of Lima ta
the point on the coast where the land boundary meets the sea, is the terminal
point on the land boundary. Chile accuses Peru of inventing a "new" Point
Concordia, and it argues that the terminal point lies at Boundary :Marker No. 1
(Hito No. 1) (which is nat in fact on the coast) instead.
2.2 The consequence of this is that the Parties disagree on the starting-point for
the maritime delimitation. As this chapter will demonstrate, Chile's arguments
on this issue are without merit.
See CCM, para 2.9, \\here Chile affirms thatthe 1929 Treaty ofLima "was adefinitive settlement
of aIl outstanding land-boundary issues" and PM, para 6.34. 38
II. The Incompatibility of Chile's Contentions
with the 1929 Treaty of Lima
2.3 It is undisputed that Article 2 of the 1929Treaty of Lima con tains the applicable
provision relating ta the location of the segment of the land boundary in the
vicinity of the sea. The relevant part of Article 2 reads as follows:
"The territory of Tacna and Arica shaH he divided into two
portions of which Tacna, shaH he allotted ta Peru and Arica
ta Chile. The dividing line between the two portions, and
consequently the frontier between the territories of Chile
and Peru, shall star! from a point on the coast to he named
'Concordia', ten kilometres ta the north of the bridge over the
river Lluta."88
Spanish text reads as follows:
"El territorio de Tacna y Arica sera dividicb en dos partes, Tacna
para el Peru y Arica p:rra Chile. La linea divisoria entre clichas
dos p1Ites y, en consecuencia, la frontera entre los territorios
del Peru y de Chile, p:rrtirâ de un punta de la costa que se
denominara 'Concordia', distante diez kil6metros al Norte deI
puente deI Rio Llutà'.
2.4 Article 2 makes it clear that the land boundary, as would be expected, "start[s]
from a point on the coast", and that this point is "to be named 'Concordia'''.
2.5 In its Memorial, Peru indicated that the co-ordinates of Point Concordia,
based on the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the definition of its location agreed
Treaty for the Seulement ofthe Dispute Regarding Tacna and Arica, with Additional Proto col,
signed on 3 June 1929 (emphasis added). Annex 45. 39
by the Parties during the demarcation operations in April 1930, are
18°21'08" S, 70°22'39" W WGS84 8• As the southernmost point on the
Peruvian coast, Point Concordia is the last of a series of 266 points included
in Peru's baseline system, and therefore bears the name Point 266 within that
oo
system . Any maritime boundary between the Parties must necessarily start
from Point Concordia.
2.6 Chile's Counter-Memorial adopts a fundamentally different position.
According ta Chile, the terminal point of the land boundary is nat "Point
Concordia", but rather "Hito No. 1", which was the first physical boundary
marker erected inland from the coast pursuant ta the wark of the Joint
Commission. In the words of the Counter-Memorial, "Hito No. 1 is the
seaward terminus of the land boundary as determined by agreement of the
Parties.''''l
2.7 This assertion is unsustainable. The Parties never agreed that Boundary
:Marker (or Bita) No. 1 was the seaward terminus of the land boundary. Bita
No. 1 is not situated at a point on the coast as required by Article 2 of the 1929
Treaty of Lima; it islocated sorne 200 metres inland. Bita No. 1, therefore,
cannot possibly be regarded as the point where the land boundary meets the
sea. Bita No. 1 isno more than one of a number of boundary markers erected
at various places along the boundary. It was purposely not situated on the
coast in order to prevent it from being washed out to sea. The land boundary
thus passes through Bita No. 1, but it does not start or stop there. The starting
point for the land boundary is "a point on the coast to be named 'Concordia'''.
In contrast to Peru, Chile has been unable to indicate where Point Concordia
is actually located.
PM, paras. 6.34-6.46.
PM, paras. 2.2, 2.8 and 2.13.
CCM, para 2.16. 40
2.8 Chile's contention that Bita No. 1 is the terminal point of the land boundary
gives rise ta two ather insunnountable problems.
2.9 First, the implication of Chile's contention is that the land boundary between
Bita No. 1 and the actuallow-water mark along the coast, sorne 200 metres
away, remains undelimited. This is clearly nat the case under the 1929 Treaty
of Lima, and it is in contradiction with Chile's own acknowledgement that:
"With the Treaty of Lima, the 1930 Final Act and the Act of Plenipotentiaries,
all outstanding land-boundary matters were definitively closed.''''l
2.10 Second, ta the extent that Chile maintains that the maritime boundary lies
along the parallel of latitude passing tbrough Bita No. 1, this would mean that
the maritime boundary either starts atHito No. 1 - which is impossible because
a maritime boundary cannat start on dry land sorne 200 metres inland from
the coast - or that it starts where that parallel meets the sea. Both scenarios
would he inconsistent with the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the work of the Joint
Commission in 1930, as well as with Chile's contention that Bito No. 1 is the
terminus of the land boundary.
2.11 The Governmental instructions given in April 1930 to the members of the
Joint Commission charged with demarcating the land boundary clearly state
that the boundary follows an arc centred upon the bridge over the River Lluta
with a radius of 10 kilometres running to its intersection with the seashore,
not a parallel of latitude running between Bito No. 1 and the coast. Chile's
contention would have the effect not only of placing the starting-point for
the maritime boundary in Peru's territory - a proposition that is obviously
untenable - but also of situating it at a location which is more than 10
kilometres from the River Lluta bridge, in contravention of the express terms
CCM, para. 2.16. 41
of the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the instructions given ta the demarcation
Joint Commission. It is evident that the Parties would never have agreed on a
maritime boundary that had, as its starting-point on the coast, a point located
exclusively within Peru's territory or a point that was at odds with the express
terms of the 1929 Treaty of Lima.
ill. The Work of the Demarcation Joint Commission
A. THE INSTRUCTIONS IssUED BY TIIE Two GOVERNMENTS
TO TIIE MEMBERS OF TIIE DEMARCATION JOINT COMMISSION
2.12 WhileArticle 2 of the 1929 Treaty of Lima stipulated that the frontier between
the territories of the two Parties "shaH start from a point on the coast ta he
named 'Concordia', ten kilometres ta the north of the bridge over the river
Lluta", it did nat specify how this Iille should he plotted and demarcated on
the ground. As explained in Peru's Memorial, a dispute arase towards the end
of 1929 amongst the Parties' two representatives on the Joint Commission as
to how the initial part of the boundary should he delimited and demarcated
and how Point Concordia - the starting-point - should he identifiecP J•
2.13 Peru's representative, :Mr. Federico Basadre, took the position that, under the
1929 Treaty of Lima, the last portion of the land boundary starting from the
seashore must he traced along an arc in a manner such that any point on the
boundary arc would he at a distance of 10 kilometres from the railway bridge
over the river Lluta. Chile's representative, :Mr.Emique Brieba, considered
See PM, paras. 6.38-6.41. 42
that the boundary should he drawn along a parallel starting 10 kilometres due
04
north of the bridge and proceeding westwards ta the sea •Since adoption of
the Brieba proposal would have resulted in the seawardmost portion of the
boundary lying at a distance of more than 10 kilometres from the bridge, :MI.
Basadre was unable ta agree ta his counterpart's suggestion.
2.14 This difference in positions was illustrated on a map - reproduced here as
Figure R-2.1- that:MI. Basadre prepared for consultation by the :Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Peru at the time. As can be seen from the enlargement
of the relevant part of the map, :MI. Basadre's position in favour of the 10-
kilometre radius arc was depicted in red, :MI. Brieba's proposal for a parallel
line was illustrated in bIne.
2.15 In view of their disagreement, both delegates agreed ta submit the question ta
their respective Govemments on 3 December 1929.
2.16 The matter was solved by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Peru and
Chile by agreeing the manner in which the first segment of the land
boundary should be calculated, and how the first physical boundary marker
should be established. On 24 April and 28 April 1930, respectively, the
Foreign Ministers provided their joint views on the matter by issuing identical
instructions to their delegates on the Joint Commission.
Memorandum No. 1 of26 October 1929 on Differences in Concordia, LagunaBlanca and Visviri
sent byPernvian Delegate Federico Basadre to Chilean Delegate Enrique Brieba In: Brieba,
Enrique:Memoria sobre los Limites entre Chile y Peru. Tomo 1: Estudio técnicoy documentos.
Santiago de Chile, Instituto Geogrâfico Militar, 1931, pp. 47-49Annex 46. In accordance
with Article 1 of Chilean Decree with Force of Law No. 2090 of 30 July 1930, the 1nstituto
Geogrdfico Militar "will constitute on a permanent basis, the official authority on behalf of
the State on all matters concerning geography, survey and production of Charts ofthe territory."
PR, Annex 18. ,,
.\';.l
.1 ,
1 "
,
"1 .,1
1 t ,',
", , . l !
, ,
,1 "'. l'
", ,
l
1 i
"~ ! : •
, :0 l "!
f "~' ,'." " 1
" . ' i ! "
" , 1
•··,r ,
l/" "
1
~ '1 l'
j 1
, 1 1
! 1
, "
• 1-~
J ;1
_~__' j 1 _ - J;l-----,.---L .
J" !
•
,
•
, , ~',
-.;
">
, 45
2.17 Chile does nat dispute this fact; indeed, it refers ta the documentary annex
filed by Peru in which the Foreign Ministers' instructions are recorded. The
relevant passage from those instructions clearly endorsed :MI. Basadre's
position and rejected the notion of a parallel. It reads as follows:
"Concordia Boundary :Marker.-Starting Point, on the coast, of
the borderline.-
Ta fix this point:
Ten kilometres shaH he measured from the first bridge of the
Arica-La Paz railway, over the River Lluta, running northwards,
at Pampa de Escritos, and an arc with a radius of ten kilometres
shaH he traced westwards, its centre being the aforementioned
"bridge,running ta intercept the seashore, sa that any point of
the arc measures a distance of 10 kilometres from the referred
bridge of the Arica-La Paz railway line over the River Lluta.
This intersection point of the traced arc with the seashore, shaH
he the starting-point of the dividing line between Peru and
Chile.
A l:xmndary marker shall he placed at any point of the arc, as
close to the sea as allows preventing it from being destroyed by
the ocean waters."o~
Spanish text reads as follows:
"Hito Concordia.- Punto Inicial, en la costa, de la linea
fronteriza.-
Para fijar este punto:
Agreement to Determine the Boundary Line and Place the Corresponding Boundary Markers at
the Points in Disagreement in the Peruvian-Chilean Limits Demarcation Joint Commission of24
April 1930 (Identical Instructions Sent to the Delegates). PM, Annex 87. 46
Semedirân diez kil6metros desde elprimerpuente del ferrocarril
de Arica a La Paz sobre el rio Lluta, en direcci6n hacia el Norte,
en la PamPl de Escritos, y se trazara, hacia el p:miente, un arco
de diez kil6metros de radio, euyo centra estara en el indicado
puente y que vaya a interceptar la orilla del mar, de modo que,
cualquier punta del arco, diste 10 kil6metros del refericb puente
del ferrocarrilde Arica a La Paz solJre el rio Lluta.
Este punta de intersecci6n deI arco trazado, con la orilia del
mar, sera el inicial delalinea divisoria entre el Peru y Chile.
Se colocara un hito en cualquier punta deI arco, 10mas pr6xima
al mar posible, donde quede a cubierto de ser destruido por las
aguas del océano."
2.18 A number of points emerge from these instructions which undennine Chile' s
thesis that Bita No. 1 is the terminus of the land boundary.
First, in strict accordance with the tenns of the 1929 Treaty of Lima, the
instructions made it clear that the last sector of the land boundary was to he
measured along an arc having a lO-kilometre radius centred upon the River
Lluta bridge, such that any point on the boundary was 10 kilometres from the
bridge. This disposes of any notion that the land boundary hetween Hito No. 1
and the coast followed a parallel of latitude or that it intersected the coast at a
distance of more than 10 kilometres from the bridge.
Second, the land boundary was to run far enough so as to "intercept the
seashore". As noted above, Hito No. 1 is not located on the seashore; Point
Concordia is.
Third, the intersection of the traced arc with the seashore was the starting
point of the land boundary. This point, as stipulated in Article 2 of the 1929
Treaty of Lima, was to he named "Concordia". It was not Hito No. 1, which 47
is nat located at the intersection with the seashore but rather sorne 200 metres
inland, and which is nat named "Concordia".
Fourth, the members of the Joint Commission were instructed ta place
a boundary marker ai any point cf the arc, as close to the sea as allows
preventing itfrom being destroyed by the ocean waters. The instruction ta
place the boundary marker "at any point of the arc" shows that the marker
was nat necessarily ta he placed at the seaward end of the arc. In fact, the
instructions stated the contrary: the boundary marker was ta be located close
ta the sea (nat at the sea) sa as ta prevent it from being destroyed by the ocean
waters. Placing the marker right at the coast line would have exposed it ta the
risk of being washed away.
2.19 Chile's Counter-Memorial refers ta the agreed identical instructions given
by the Foreign :Ministers ta their delegates ta the Joint Commission in an
incomplete and highly misleading manner. According to Chile:
"The instructions set forth directions as to the course of the first
segment of the boundary, stated that a boundary marker (hito)
would he the 'Starting Point, on the coast [en la costa], of the
borderline', and gave guidance as to the placement of that hito
on the coast.'>W
2.20 This is not what the instructions say. In particular, the instructions do not
indicate that a boundary marker or hito "would he" the starting-point of the
boundary on the coast. They state that the starting-point was the intersection
of the traced arc with the seashore. Chile does not mention this fact. Nor does
it acknowledge that the agreed instructions stated that the boundary was to he
an arc, not a parallel, and that all points on that arc were to he 10 kilometres
CCM, para 2.11. 48
from the bridge. Chile alsa fails ta explain the significance of the instruction
that the first boundary marker was ta be placed as close ta the sea as allows
preventing it from being destroyed by ocean waters (nat on the coast), a
provision which the Chilean Counter-Memorial buries in a footnoté'7.In ather
words, Chile avoids addressing the very elements of the instructions that sa
clearly contradict its position.
2.21 Instead, the Chilean Counter-Memorial foenses on the heading ta the
instructions given ta theJ oint Commission which reads: "Concordia Boundary
Marker.- Starting Point, on the coast, of the borderline". It is based on the
language of this heading that Chile makes its assertion that the instruction
stated that a boundary marker, or hito, "would he the 'Starting Point, on the
coast [en la costa], of the borderline', and gave guidance as ta the placement
of that hilo on the coast.''''8
2.22 This line of argument is misguided in a number of key respects. First, as
noted above, the heading to the instructions did not say that the "Concordia
Boundary :Marker" would he the starting-point on the coast of the borderline.
The intersection of the lO-kilometre arc with the seashore was the starting
point (Point Concordia under the 1929 Treaty of Lima).
2.23 Second, with respect to the boundary marker, the instructions indicated that
the marker should not he "on the coast", but at a point on the arc leading up to
the coast sufficiently far away so that it would not he destroyed by the ocean
waters. Consequently, the boundary marker was not the starting-point of the
land boundary. Moreover, the first boundary marker was not named "Concordia
Boundary Marker". The marker ultimately named "Concordia" for symbolic
CCM, footnote 129.
CCM, para. 2.11. 49
00
reasons was Boundary :MarkerNo. 9 ,which was establishedseveral kilometres
inland. Its position may he seen on Figure 6.5 ta Peru's Memorial.
2.24 Thus, the intention of the Parties was clearly for the land boundary ta run all
the way ta the coast (as a matter of delimitation), and for the first boundary
marker ta he located at a safe distance inland (as a matter of demarcation).
2.25 In this respect, it is important ta recall that the purpose of the 1929 Treaty
of Lima was ta solve the problem of the territory of the occupied Peruvian
100
provinces of Tacna andArica by dividing the territory in two: Tacnareturned
ta Peru; Chile retaining Arica. It is therefore evident that the dividing line was
necessarily intended ta go all the way ta the Pacifie Ocean and could nat stop
at Bita No. 1, located sorne 200 metres short of the sea.
B. THE CONTFMPORANEOUS SKETCH-MAP DFPICI1NG TIIE BOUNDARY
2.26 Chile's Counter-Memorial also ignores the important sketch-map that was
prepared and signed by the Chilean delegate on the Joint Commission, :MI.
Brieba, showing the seaward-most part of the boundary, notwithstanding
the fact that the sketch-map had been reproduced as an insert to Figure 6.4
of Peru's Memorial. For ease of reference, a larger copy of the sketch appears
In his 1930'sMemoir, the Chilean delegate Enrique Brieba stated that "in a conversation between
the Delegates, [they] considered that a memorial column could be placed on the boundary
marker to be built next to the Arica-Tacna railway". Brieba, Enriquop. cif.p. 3. PR, Annex
47. Elsewhere, Mr. Brieba added that "Boundary Marker No. 9 Concordia was constructed, in
accordance with the photographs attached at the end. Two bronze plates have beenaced on the
base; one on the sidefChile and the other on the side ofPeru, as perthe instructions ... Apart
from the Concordia signal in a concrete casting, the inscription 'Ibaiiez' [Chilean President]
has been placed on the railway side and the inscription 'Leguia' [Peruvian President] on the
sea side." Brieba, Enriqueop. cit.p.17. PR, Annex 48. On the photograph from the Brieba's
Memoir, attached as Figure R-2.2 in Vol. III ofthis Reply, a ceremony at Boundary Marker No.
9 Concordia can be seen.
See PM, paras. 1.20-1.31. 50
here as Figure R-2.3. It was included in:MI. Brieba's Memoir summarizing
the wark of the Joint Commission that was delivered ta the Chilean Foreign
Minister after the completion of the Joint Commission's task.
2.27 The Brieba sketch-map is one of a number of maps that the Chilean delegate
prepared showing the details of the boundary along the lO-kilometre arc
centred upon River Lluta bridge. For completeness, the ather relevant sketches
are included as Figures R-2.4, R-2.5, R-2.6 and R-2.7 in Volume III of this
Reply. Plate No. IX (Figure R-2.3) depicts the final segment of the land
boundary between Bita No. 3 and the coast. The locations of Hito No. 1 and
Bita No. 2 are also depicted on the map.
2.28 It can he clearly seen from the map that the land boundary does nat start or
end at Bita No. 1; it continues along the lO-kilometre arc right uptathe coast
in a southwest direction from Hito No. 1. The sketch-map thus completely
undennines Chile's thesis thatHito No. 1 is the terminus of the land boundary.
Given that the map was contemporaneously prepared by Chile's own member
on the Joint Commission, it is entitled to a high degree of probative value. Of
equal significance is the fact that the map is entirely consistent with the 1930
Identical Instructions that were given by the Foreign Ministers of the two
countries to the Joint Commission.
2.29 During the Joint Commission's work, a question arose as to how the
boundary markers should be placed along the lO-kilometre radius arc
measured from the bridge over the River Lluta. On 22 May 1930, therefore,
a set of purely technical instructions was given by the two members of the
Joint Commission to a sub-commission comprised of two Party-appointed
engineers charged with this task (the Moyano-Tirado Sub-Commission).
Section 19 of the technical instructions was entitled "Boundary Markers at
the Arc of Concordia"lOl.
Brieba, Enrique, op. cit., p. 94. PR, Annex 50. 51
MAP OF THE INITIAL SECTOR OF THE
PERU-CHILE LAND BOUNDARY LAMIN IX
(Prepared and signed by Enrique Brieba)
/::,. 6,.,_p_':.ut'- _
~--i-- -~' -- -- - ---
1
Figure R-2.3 53
2.30 The instructions stipulated that, starting at Boundary Marker No. 12, boundary
markers would he established at 6° intervals along the arc, thereby working
0
from the land towards the sea. Ta accomplish this task, a 174 angle had ta
he calculated in order ta fix the location of the next boundary marker working
towards the sea. Each boundary marker was ta he erected 1046.7 metres apart,
measured in a straightline or chard, sa as ta result in their placementfalling on
the lO-kilometre radius arc at the appropriate intervals. The actual boundary
between each of the boundary markers continued ta lie on the arc, nat on the
chard, but the location of the markers themselves was calculated by reference
ta where the straight line segments intersected the arc.
2.31 This process of demarcation shows that the location of Boundary :Marker
No. 1 (Bita No. 1) was nat arbitrarily detennined. As has been seen, the Joint
Commission had instructions from the two Govemments to place this marker
sorne distance from the actual coast to prevent it from being destroyed by the
ocean waters. They also had technical instructions that its position should
be calculated by reference to the 174 angle and the 1046.7-metre distance
criteria from the next relevant boundary marker lying further inland.
2.32 It can be seen from the Brieba sketch-map that these criteria were applied
with respect to detennining the location of Hito No. 1, as well as the location
of the other boundary markers situated on the 10-kilometre arc. Recalling that
the Joint Commission was working from the land towards the sea, at Hito No.
3, a 174 angle was drawn in order to determine the bearing of the chord on
which the next marker would be situated. The distance of the chord between
Hito No. 3 and Hito No. 1, is 1047 metres, as is apparent if one adds up the
distances on the Brieba map. This confonns to the technical instructions. The
actual boundary line, which is shown as a solid black line on the map, lies
somewhat to the north of the straight line segments because it falls on the
lO-kilometre radius arc. 54
2.33 The Brieba sketch-map shows that the same process was repeated at Bita
0
No. 1. Once again, a 174 angle was drawn from it in order ta determine the
direction of the chard that would he used ta fix the location of what would
have been the next boundary marker ta the southwest if the coasdine had
nat been doser than 1046.7 metres away, and thus interrupted the line. The
sketch-map confinns (if further confirmation is needed) that the intention was
for the land boundary ta continue in a southwest direction from Hito No. 1 up
untilit intersected with the coast.
2.34 As can he seen on the Brieba sketch-map, the Joint Commission also
fixed the location of a second bounelary marker - Bita No. 2 - between
Bita No. 1 and Bita No. 3. This marker is less than 1046.7 metres from
bath of its neighbouring markers. This additional marker was intercalated
by the Joint Commission, along with Boundary :Marker No. 9 further inland,
during the course of the demarcation process to further define the boundary.
Boundary Marker No. 9, which for symbolic reasons was named "Concordia",
was added because the delegation agreed to have one supplementary marker
101
situated close to where the railway line crossed the border • Boundary
Marker No. 2 was added so as to be intervisible with Boundary Markers Nos.
1 and 3 which were not themselves intervisibie. This was in confonnity with
the instructions that the Parties' delegates on the Joint Commission had given
lOJ
to their staff to ensure intervisibilityetween the various markers •
2.35 The alignment of the straight line segments used to calculate the positioning
of each of the boundary markers along the lO-kilometre arc was carried out
with precision by identifying a series of intennediate points between them.
This can also be seen on the Brieba sketch-map.
See footnote 99 above and Brieba, Enrique, op. cit., pp.PR,-9Annex 50.
Instructions for the Location of Boundary Markers on the Boundary Poligonal M-L-K-J-I-H,
Frias-NovionSub-Comission.lbid.,pp. 90-91.PR, Annex 49. 55
2.36 Proceeding from Bita No. 3 southwestwards towards Hito No. 1, the location
of five intennediate points is depicted on the Brieba map, and the points are
numbered 1 ta 5. The same process was applied inland of Bita No. 3, although
only the fiftpoint between Hito No. 4 and Hito No. 3 can he seen on the map
before it encls. Similarly, another point (No. 1) was identified seaward, or ta
the southwest, of Hito No. 1, since this represented the first intermediate
point after that boundary marker working towards the sea. Afterwards,
there was no more roOlli for any more intennediate points before the coast
was reached. However, the fact that an intermediate point was identified
between Hito No. 1 and the coast is further proof that the boundary did nat
stop short atBita No. 1, but ran past it right uptathe sea, as shawn on the
Briebamap.
2.37 Chile's delegate on the Joint Commission CMr.Brieba) described this process
in hisMemoir on the demarcation of the boundary. The Memoir also contains
the photograph "La Frontera en La Playa" (The Boundary on the Beach)
which shows the technical experts of the Parties standing along the frontier
on the beach next to the sea (Figure R-2.8). Once again, it is evident that the
intention was for the land boundary to extend all the way to the sea.
C. THE 21 JULY 1930 FINAL ACT OF TIIE DEMARCATION JOINT COMMISSION
AND TIIE ACT OF 5 AUGUST 1930
2.38 Under the 1929 Treaty of Lima, Tacna returned to Peru, while Chile retained
Arica. Chile's Counter-Memorial recalls the fact that Article 4 of the Treaty
provided that, 30 days after the exchange of ratifications of the Treaty, "Chile 56
shaH transfer ta the Government of Peru all territories which under the Treaty
are ta come into the possession of Peru." Article 4 then went on ta state:
"The Plenipotentiaries of the Contracting Parties shaH sign a
deed of transfer containing a detailed statement of the position
and distinguishing characteristics of the frontier-posts."l04
Spanish text reads as follows:
"Se firmara, por plenipotenciarios de las citadas Partes
Contratantes, una acta de entrega que contendrâ la relaci6n
detallada de la ubicaci6n y caracteristicas definitivas de los hitos
fronterizos."
2.39 Chile's Counter-Memorial states that, "in fulfilment of this obligation" the
Ambassador of Chile ta Peru and the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs
signed an "Act of Plenipotentiaries" on 5 August 19301 0ollowing the
signature of the Final Act of the Commission of Limits Containing the
Description of Placed Boundary :Markers (hereinafter "Final Act") by its
members. Chile then goes on to assert that, with the 1929 Treaty of Lima, the
Final Act and the "Act of Plenipotentiaries", all outstanding land-boundary
matters were definitively closed, and that "Hito No. 1 is the seaward terminus
of the land boundary as determined by agreement of the Parties."l06
2.40 This account neither reflects what actually happened nor lends any support
to the contention that Bita No. 1 was the seaward terminus of the land
boundary.
![loTreaty for the Seulement ofthe Dispute Regarding Tacna and Arica, with Additional Proto col,
signed on 3 June 1929., Annex 45.
CCM, para. 2.15.
CCM, para. 2.16. 57
"THE BOUNDARY ON THE BEACH"
(Taken from Mr. 8rieba"s Memoir)
•
Figure R-2.8 59
2.41 The transfer of territories actually took place, and the Deed of Transfer was
signedon 28 August 1929. At that time, the demarcation operations of the Joint
Commissionhadnot yet begun, and the members of the Joint Commission had
nat received the instructions from their Ministers of Foreign Affairs relating
ta the plotting of the final part of the boundary and the placement of the first
boundary marker. Accordingly, the Deed of Transfer referred ta in Article
4 of the 1929 Treaty of Lima could nat contain a detailed statement of the
positions and distinguishing characteristics of the frontier-posts. Instead, the
Deed of Transfer stipulated that this would be included in a subsequent act ta
107
he signed upon the completion of the demarcation process •
2.42 The Joint Commission finished its wark on 21 July 1930, at which time the
two delegates of the Parties on the Commission signed the Final Act. The
description of the land boundary was set out in the second paragraph of the
Final Act as follows:
"The demarcated boundary line starts from the Pacifie Ocean at
a point on the seashore ten kilometres northwest from the first
bridge over the River Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway, and
ends in the Andean mountain range at Boundary :Marker V of
the former dividing line lJetween Chile and Bolivia."108
Spanish text reads as follows:
"La linea de frontera demarcada parte del océanoPacffico en
un punto en la orilla del mar situado a diez kil6metros hacia
el noroeste del primer puente sobre el rio Lluta de la via ferrea
de Arica a La Paz, y termina en la cordillera andina en el hito
quinto de la antigua linea divisoria entre Chile y Bolivia."
Deed ofTransfer of Tacna of29 August 1929PR, Annex 45.
Final Act ofthe Commission ofLimits Containing the Description ofPlaced Boundary Markers
of21 July 1930 (emphasis added). PM, Annex 54. 60
2.43 Consistent with Article 2 of the 1929 Treaty of Lima, which stipulated that
the land frontier "shaH start from a point on the coast", and the 1930 Identical
Instructions, which provided that the "intersection point of the traced arc
with the seashore, shaH he the starting-point of the dividing line", the Final
Act stated that the boundary "starts from the Pacifie Ocean at a point on
the seashore". Quite clearly, the Final Act did nat suggest that the boundary
started atHito No. 1. Had this been the intention of the Commission members,
the Final Act would have been drafted differently. Given the reference in the
Final Act ta the boundary ending (at its furthest point inland) at Boundary
Marker V on the former dividing line between Chile and Bolivia, it is clear
that the Joint Commission knew how ta refer ta a specifie Boundary Marker
when they wished ta do so. Significantly, they did nat indicate that the first
Boundary :Marker (Bita No. 1) was the starting-point of the boundary.
2.44 The Final Act went on to describe how the position of the boundary markers
had been identified and the markers constructed. It then listed a description of
all 80 boundary markers (hitos) with their co-ordinates and place of location.
2.45 Chile seizes on the fact that Bita No. 1 is recorded as being placed on the
"seashore" at astronomical co-ordinates 18°21'03" S, 70°22'56" W l".It then
points out that, in the subsequent Act signed on 5 August 1930 by the :Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Peru and the Chilean Ambassador to Peru pursuant
to Article 4 of the 1929 Treaty of Lima (and the 28 August 1929 Deed of
Transfer), the place of location of Bita No. 1 is also recorded as being the
"seashore"llO. These facts, according to Chile, justify its daim that Bita No. 1
is the terminus of the land boundary.
CCM, paras. 2.14-2.15 and footnote 136 thereto.
IbidSee also Act of 5 August 1930. PR, Annex 51. 61
2.46 Once again, Chile's argument is unsound. The purposes of the Final Act and
the Act of 5 August 1930 were different. The Final Act was signed by the two
delegates representing the Parties on the Joint Commission (Messrs. Brieba
and Basadre). It stipulated that, with its signature, the workof the Commission
carried out by mutual accord, and in accordance with the instructions received
by both delegates, was concluded, and that all the boundary markers required
ta demarcate the boundary were positioned 11• The Final Act also made it
clear that the demarcated boundary started from the Pacifie Ocean (nat from
Hito No. 1) at a point on the seashore 10 kilometres northwest (nat north)
from the river Lluta bridge. It then listed the location of each of the boundary
markers.
2.47 In contrast, pursuant ta Article 4 of the 1929 Treaty, the Act of 5 August
1930 signed by the Foreign Minister of Peru and the Ambassador of Chile,
was to include "a detailed statement of the position and distinguishing
characteristics of the frontier-posts", not a description of the boundary as a
whole. It is obvious that the actual boundary was not comprised solely of
boundary markers. The boundary ran between those markers along an arc,
and beyond Bito No. 1 up to the point where it intersected with the coast. This
is confinned by the Brieba sketch-map and the 1930 Identical Instructions to
the Joint Commission.
2.48 The reference to Bito No. 1 being located on the "seashore" (Grilla del mar)
in both theFinal Act and the Act of 5 August 1930 was no more than a general
description of where it was located - i.e., in an area adjacent to and near
the sea. Similar general descriptions were used for numerous other boundary
markers in both the Final Act and in the Act of 5 August 1930. For example,
Boundary :Markers Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were all stated to be located at
Act of the Commission ofLimits Containing the Description ofPlaced Boundary Markers of21
July 1930. PM, Annex 54. 62
the "plain of Escritos ta the west of the Arica ta Tacna railway" (Pampa
de Escritos al Geste del F.C. de Arica a Tacna). Boundary :Marker No. 13
was located at the "gorge of Escritos" (Quebrada de EscritoS)lll, and the
location of a number of ather markers was described using similar generalized
language. None of these descriptions referred ta a specifie point; they were all
general in nature.
D. THE LOCATION OF 1RE TERMINUS OF TIIE LAND BOUNDARY
AT POINT CONCDRDIA
2.49 Based on the foregoing, it can he seen that Chile's contention that the
terminus of the land boundary is at Bita No. 1 is plainly wrong. Chile's
argument is incompatible with the tenns of Article 2 of the 1929 Treaty of
Lima, inconsistent with the instructions given ta the Joint Commission, and
impossible ta reconcile with the Brieba sketch-map.
2.50 The start of the land boundary is the point where the lO-kilometre radius arc
centred upon the bridge over the River Lluta intersects with the coast. That
point is named "Concordia". Peru has identified the co-ordinates of Point
Concordia as 18°21'08" S, 70°22'39" W WGS84. These co-ordinates did not
need to be calculated in 1930 because no boundary marker was constructed
there. However, they have since been detennined by Peru when it established
the various points along its baseline system and enacted its :Maritime Domain
113
Baselines Law in 2005 •The southernmost point on Peru's baselines is Point
266, the co-ordinates of which are those of Point Concordia noted above.
Act of 5 August 1930PR, Annex 51.
Law No. 28621 of3 November 2005, Peruvian Maritime Domain Baselines Law. PM, Annex
23. 63
2.51 Chile asserts that "Point 266 unilaterally seeks ta depart from the Parties'
long-standing agreement that Bita No. 1 is the first demarcated point on the
land boundary"ll\ and that Point 266 "is simply incapable of producing any
effect vis-à-vis Chile (i.e.,t is nat opposable ta Chile). Thlelfrst assertion
is wrong; the second avoids addressing the key point. While Bita No. 1
is the first boundary marker that was erected along the course of the land
boundary - a matter that Peru does nat dispute - it was nat the first point on
that boundary. That point is the "point on the coast ta henamed 'Concordia''',
as Article 2 of the 1929 Treaty stipulates. It is Chile that unilaterally seeks
ta depart from these established legal facts by refusing ta acknowledge that
Point Concordia is the terminal point on the Parties' land boundary.
2.52 Point Concordia is opposable ta Chile by virtue of the 1929 Treaty of Lima
and the work of the Joint Commission. Peru has in faet sought to verify the
eo-ordinates of Point Coneordia jointly with Chile, but the latter has refused
to do so.
2.53 For example, before Peru's Baselines Law had been approved and in
response to a Note that Chile sent on 28 Oetober 2005 11, Peru sent on 31
Oetober 2005 a diplomatie Note to Chile proposing that the Parties, through
their representation on the 1997 Peru-Chile Permanent Joint Commission
l17
of Limits ,verify the aeeuraey of the eo-ordinates of Point 266 at Point
Coneordia. The relevant part of the Note reads as follows:
'" CCM, para 2.20 (emphasis added).
Ibid.
'"
Note No. 17,192/05 of 28 October 2005, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the
Ambassador ofPeru. CCM, Annex 106.
On 6 March 1997, Peru and Chile set up a Commission by means of the "Agreement on the
Conservation ofMarkers on the Common Boundary". Among its responsibilities, provided
for in Article 1, this Commission is entitled to determine the co-ordiand dimensions
of the boundary markers with reference to a geodetic system in use by cartographie
organizations of both countries as well as to elaborate a common cartographof the land
boundary. PR, Annex 38. 64
"As ta point 266, contained in Annex 1 of the Draft Law
entitled 'List of Co-ordinates of the Contributing Points for the
Baseline System of the Peruvian Littoral', 1must express ta Your
Excellency that in fact, Annex 1 of the aforesaid Draft Law
consigns the co-ordinates 18°21'Œ" S and 70°22'39" W in the
WGS84 system as the 'Point on the Coast, International Land
Boundary Œtween Peru-Chile'. This contributing point has heen
obtained tbrough the calculationmade ta determine the starting
point of the land boundary on the seashore, established by virtue
cf the only boundary treaty in force between our countries,
namely the Treaty for the Settlement of the Dispute regarding
Tacna and Arica and its Additional Protocol, signed on 3 June
1929 and the Final Act of the Joint Commission of Liruits
between Peru and Chile, in force since it was signed on 21 July
1930. These co-ordinates correspond ta the starting-point of
the land boundary on the seashore of the lO-kilometre radius
arc, whose axis is located at the first bridge over River Lluta
of the Arica to La Paz railway, an arc that constitutes the land
boundary line between both countries. Any other interpretation
or application of this juridical framework constitutes an act
contrary to intemationallaw.
Whenever the Parties mutually agree, the Permanent Joint
Commission of Limits could verify the accuracy of the endpoint
co-ordinates on the seashore of such arc, contained in the
Peruvian Baselines Draft Law."118
Spanish text reads as follows:
"En cuanto al punto 266, contenicb en elAnexo 1delproyecto de
If)'titulado 'Listadelas coordenadas delos puntos contribuyentes
del sistema de lineas de Œse dellitoral peruanD', debo {Xpresar
a Vuestra Excelencia que, efectivamente, el Anexo 1 del citado
proyecto consigna las coordenadas 18°21'08" S y 70°22'39"
W en el sistema WGS84, coma el 'Punto en la costa Limite
Note (GAB) No. 6-4/154 of 31 October 2005, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru to
Ambassador ofChile (emphasis added). PR, Annex 78. 65
Intemacional terrestre Peni-Chile'. Este punta contribuyente ha
sicb obtenido por el calcula que se ha efectuado para detenninar
el punta inicial de la frontera terrestre en la orilla del mar,
establecido en virtud deI linico trataoo de limites vigente entre
nuestros Plises, titulado Tratado y Protocolo Complementario
p:rraresolver la cuesti6n de Tacna y Arica, suscrito el3 de junio
de 1929, y del Acta Final de la Comisi6n :M:ixtade Limites entre
Peru y Chile, vigente desde su firma, el 21 de julio de 1930.
Estas coordenadas corresponden al punta inicial de la frontera
terrestre en la orilla del mar deI arco de diez kil6metros de radio,
euyo eje esta en elprimerpuente sobre elrio Lluta del ferrocarril
de Arica a La Paz, arco que constituye la linea limitrofe terrestre
entre ambos paises. Cualquier atra interpretaci6n 0 aplicaci6n
de este marco juridico constituye un acta contrario al derecho
internacional.
En una oportunidad mutuamente convenida, la Comisi6n Mixta
Permanente de Limites podria verificar la {Xactitud de las
coordenadas del punto final en la orilla del mar deI citado arco
contenidas en el proyecto de ley de lineas de base del Peru."
2.54 Chile did not accept this proposal. In a Note dated 3 November 2005, Chile
asserted that Point 266 "does not coincide with the measurements established
by both countries and fails to recognize, and modifies, the agreed frontier
line."110
2.55 These allegations miss the mark. First, the Parties never joindy established
the co-ordinates where the land boundary intersected the coast as provided
for in the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the 1930 Identical Instructions to the Joint
Commission because there was no need to do so at that time. The instructions
to the Joint Commission were not to establish a boundary marker directly
on the coast or to identify that point with co-ordinates. This is why Peru
,,, Note No. 17359/05 of 3 November 2005, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the
Ambassador ofPeru. CCM, Annex 107. 66
invited Chile ta join it in verifying those co-ordinates. Second, when Peru
subsequently identified the location of Point Concordia in the course of
issuing its baselines law, it in no way modified the agreed boundary line.
Peru simply identified by co-ordinates the point on the coast where the 10-
kilometre radius arc constituting the boundary meets the sea which, in turn,
corresponds ta the last point (Point 266) of its baseline system. The location
of this point can be seen on the satellite image of the relevant area reproduced
as Figure R-2.9.
2.56 Chile also did nat accept a further proposal made by Peru on 24 January 2007,
in the framework of the Sixth Ordinary Session of the 1997 Permanent Joint
Commission of Limits, ta map jointly the course of the boundary resulting
120
from the wark of the Commission in 1930 •Chile' s excuse for nat taking
up this initiative was that the 1997 Permanent Joint Commission was not
authorized to deal with such issues Ill.
2.57 It follows that the only reason why there has been no agreement between the
Parties on the co-ordinates of Point Concordia is because of Chile' s refus al to
join Peru in carrying out the task of verifying those co-ordinates. This does
not mean that Point Concordia does not exist or cannot be located. Peru' s
identification of the co-ordinates of Point Concordia stands unrebutted. It is
Chile that has been unable or unwilling to inform the Court of the location of
the point where the land boundary actually meets the sea under the tenns of
the 1929 Treaty of Lima.
Minutes ofthe Sixth Ordinary Session ofthe Pern-Chile Pennanent Joint Commission ofLimits,
24 January 2007, p. 3. PR, Annex 53.
See footnote 117 above. Under Article 11 of the Rules of Activities, General Provisions and
Working Plan of the Peru-Chile Permanent Joint Commission of Limits, the Commission was
authorised to consider as consultation documents the Memoirsf Messrs. Brieba and Basadre.
PR, Annex 52. 67
POINT 266 AS THE STARTING-POINT FOR
THE PERU-CHILE LAND BOUNDARY
(Plotted on Google Earth)
Coww.,Une
~~ ~C- ----- jj-------" ------M
Ad,pfrGlo""'Y T"min~olll1
Figure R-2.9 69
IV. The Subsequent Prac!ice of the Parties
2.58 Chile's own cartography, atleast up ta the 1990s when it started ta change its
maps, makes it clear that Chile recognized that the terminal point of the land
boundary was situated at Point Concordia, a point that was distinct from Hito
No. 1. Chile's maps issued during this period also did nat show any maritime
boundary along the parallel of latitude passing tbrough Hito No. 1.
2.59 In Volume lof his Memoir, Chile's representative on the 1929-1930 Joint
Commission (ML Brieba) included a "General Map of the Departments of
Tacna and Arica, as they had been divided" (reproducedhere as Figure R-2.10).
It shows "Concordia" as the name of the point where the land boundary
meets the sea. The same notation appears on a 1929 map issued by Chile's
Railway Department of the Public Works Department of the Chilean Ministry
of Promotion, where "Concordia" can again he seen to be the terminal point
(Figure R-2.11 in Volume III of this Reply).
2.60 With respect to Chile's cartography after the 1952 Declaration of Santiago,
reference may be made to an official 1966 map of Arica published by Chile.
This map is reproduced here as Figure R-2.13. The map shows "Concordia"
and "Hito 1" as two distinct points at different locations. Concordia is located
where the land boundary meets the coast; Hito 1 is situated inland. The curved
arc of the land boundary can be seen to extend seaward of Hito No. 1 right up
tothe coastlll.Themap is consistent with the terms of the 1929 Treaty of Lima
and the work of the 1930 Joint Commission. It directly contradicts Chile's
contention that Hito No. 1 is the terminus of the land boundary. Significantly,
themap does not display any maritime boundary extending along a parallel
122 See also Figure R-2.12 in Vol. III ofthis Reply. 70
of latitude offshore, whether from Point Concordia or from the parallel of
latitude passing tbrough Hito No. 1.
2.61 Chile's 1973 and 1989 editions of Nautical Chart 101, showing the city of
Arica and the westernmost portion of the land boundary, also depict the land
boundary following the arc right up ta the sea beyond the Peruvian light
tower that had been erected in 1968-1969 in proximity ta Hito No. 1. These
charts were reproduced as Figures 5.19 and 5.23 ta Peru's Memorial at pages
183 and 189. They are inconsistent with the view now expressed in Chile's
Counter-Memorial that the land boundary tenninated at Hito No. 1, inland
from the coas t.
2.62 As noted in Peru's Memorial, it was only in 1998 that Chile started ta modify
its charts in a belated and self-serving way ta eliminate the part of the curved
boundary line between the sea and Hito No. 1. It is strikintacompare Chile' s
1998 chart showing the relevant area reproduced as Figure R-2.15, with
its 1989 chart, which appears in Figure R-2.14. Chile's 1998 chart simply
refashions geography by altering the course of the treaty boundary line ll•
2.63 Notwithstanding this belated change to Chile's official cartography, earlier
Chilean maps had consistently depicted "Concordia" as thepoint where theland
boundary meets the sea. Referencemay be made to Figure 5.8, in page 179 of
Peru's Memorial, which is a 1941 map published by the Military Geographie
Instituteof Chile. It labels the point where the land boundary meets the sea
"Concordia". Three other maps issued by the Military Geographie Institute
in 1955, 1961 and 1963 show the same thing - namely, "Concordia" as the
terminal point on the land boundary. This can be seen on Figures R-2.16,
R-2.17 and R-2.18 in Volume III of this Reply.
123 See PM, paras. 5.27-5.28. See also Figures 5.19 and 5.25 in Vol. IV thereto (Maps and Figures). 71
c.'- .:._..'.::'._
TACNA ARICA
TAL COMOHAN :QUEDADO . DIVIOIOOS
,,---- -
17
,
li..
T'+-v+++ Li~,l'Jn/"rllaûo",:" P"Toc",:r;"~loÛ1.civ,;
..l.-I._~:'"T:,""p,,,,"",._, ---.-- F",-,·oc,,;-3"/0
Ca"~Ie,>"~'''F'olacr""
GENERAL MAP OF THE DEPARTMENTS C~aole>j'r' oy," "
OF TACNA AND ARICA,
AS THEY HAVE BEEN DIVIDED
(From Volume 1of Mr. 8rieba's Memoir)
Figure R-2.10 73
OFFICIAL MAP OF ARICA: 1966
(Publlshed by the InGeogrMko MliitardChlle)
"KICA
ISH-iOIS
f' E R U
o E C
, c '
U • C
. '
···1
1
o
o
\',."
CONCORDIA
o
u
"l
FigureR-2.13 75
RADA Y PUERTO DE ARICA: 1989
(Excerpt from Chllean Namlcal Chart 101)
n'
, ,
;
Il. " \. ,i
h , h .
• '.'
".
""
",
1Y"llow highligh ting added .
Figure R-2.14
RADA Y PUERTO DE ARICA: 1998
(Excerpt from Chllean Namlcal Chart 1111)
".
,">
'',-,
-' ."
'" ,
,
",,
Y"llow highligh ting added \,
J _' ,
Figure R-2.15 77
2.64 With respect ta the bilateral practice of the Parties, in 1987 a Peru-Chile
Commission was set upfar the inspection, repair andrepositioning ofboundary
markers on the land boundary, sorne of which had been destroyed or moved.
Under the technical rules goveming the Commission's wade, it was agreed
that reports (or monographs) verifying individual boundary markers would
he prepared with each Party taking responsibility for certain markers. Figure
R-2.19, reproduced herein, is a reproduction of one of the monographs dated
July 1992 prepared by the Chilean delegation as part of the inspection of
Boundary Marker No. 2. The enlarged inset ta the figure again shows the arc
of the land boundary extending seaward ta the southwest of Hito No. 1 up ta
the coast. It contradicts Chile's current assertion that the land boundary end
at Bita No. 1.
2.65 Chilean authors have also acknowledged that Bita No. 1 isnot synonymous
with "Point Concordia", and that Hito No. 1 does not constitute the terminal
point on the land boundary. For example, the distinguished Chilean jurist,
Hugo Llanos Mansilla, who was a member of the Advisory Council for the
:Maritime Boundary of the Chilean Government, wrote as recently as 2006
that:
"The Joint Commission placed Boundary :Marker No. 1
at approximately 140 metres from the seashore and Point
Concordia."114
2.66 Notwithstanding Chile's practice to the contrary, the Chilean Counter
Memorial attempts to argue that Peru has treated Hito No. 1 as the point
under Article 2 of the 1929 Treaty of Lima, "i.e. the starting point of the land
124 Llanos Mansilla, Hugo: Teoria y practica de! Derecho Internacional Pl1blico.Tomo II, Vol. 1,
Tercera edici6n actualizada, Santiago de Chile, Editorial Juridica de Chile, 2006, p. 157. 78
boundary" lnlths respect, Chile refers ta the 1982 and 1988 editions of
Peru's Sailing Directions, which are said ta describe a point referred ta as
"Hito Concordia" as the southem frontier of Peru.
2.67 The Sailing Directions do no such thing. Quite apart from the fact that the
Sailing Directions have no legal status and are designed ta assistnavigation, nat
ta describe boundaries, the actual description found in the Sailing Directions
is very general and does nat equate Hito No. 1 (or "Hito Concordia") with the
terminal point on the land boundary where it meets the sea. The Instructions
merely note that:
"In the eastem part of the boundary marker Concordia lies
the gorge of ws Salinas and, on the coastline, a place named
Pascana del Hueso, which constitutes the last topographical
feature of the Peruvian coast before reaching the southem
frontier."116
2.68 Chile also mentions a 2001 Peruvian law, which refers to the boundary of
the Province of Tacna starting at Boundary Marker No. 1 (Pacific Ocean)ll7.
What Chile fails to mention, however, is that Law No. 29189 specifies that
the bmit of the Province of Tacna runs "along the boundary line with Chile
until it intersects withhePacific Ocean at Point Concordia ..." on the grounds
that domestic legislation cannot derogate from international agreements,
ll8
including the 1929 Treaty of Lima •Peru's current law relating to the Iimits
of the Tacna Province provides that Point Concordia is the southern limit of
the province, in confonnity with the 1929 Treaty of Lima.
CCM, para. 2.17.
Directorate ofHydrographyand Navigation ofthe Navy, Derrotero de la Costa dei Peru, Vol. II,
1982. CCM, Annex 172.
CCM, para. 2.17. See also Law No. 27415 of 25 January 2001: Territorial Demarcation of the
Province of Tacna. CCM, Annex 191.
LawNo. 29189 of16 January 2008,LawspecifyingArticle 3 ofLawNo. 27415,Law on Territorial
Demarcation ofthe Province of Tacna, Department of Tacna PR, Annex 16. "- •
~ .
, : ~
; "0 :
• i
"
,~
;
•
,
,
"
----~ !~--.-;
~ ,
• ,
, \
~•
.,
~ ,,/
• •
, 1
• •
1
"
" . ~ 3
· " " 9
j ~ N ,• ï
o., • ,• , •
!!~ :\. •
u ·•"
, •
"
!(
o ". .- \
... i~«'
Z -..
- 81
2.69 On the ather hand, Chile's Counter-Memorial fails ta mention two incidents,
referred ta in Chapter 1above, which reinforce the fact that the land boundary
neither stopped at Bita No. 1, naf continued along theparallel passing through
that marker ta the sea.
2.70 The first occurred in April 2001 when a Peruvian technical commission
travelled ta the border zone ta inspect the position of a Chilean surveillance
booth that had been erected between Hito No. 1 and the seashore. Peru
discovered that the location of the surveillance booth was inPeruvian territory,
north of the arc of the boundary line that was established in 1929-1930 by
means of the bilateral agreements on the delimitation of the boundary discussed
above. By a Note dated 10 April 2001, Peru protested the construction of the
oooth, stating that under noClrcumstances should it remain in Peruvian territoryllO.
2.71 Chile immediately responded on Il April 2001, arguing that the booth was
situated in Chilean territory to the south of a "boundary" said to have been
demarcated pursuant to the light tower arrangements that were implemented
in 1968 and 19691:X) T.his line of argument was misconceived because thelight
tower arrangements had nothing to do with the delimitation or demarcation of
theland boundary. Consequently, Chilewas obliged to removethe surveillance
booth the next day, and the incident was satisfactorily resolved 1J•
2.72 The second incident occurred in the mid-2000s when Chile attempted to
introduce new intemallegislation modifying the land boundary that had been
agreed in 1929-1930.
129 Note (GAB) No. 6/23 of 10 April 2001, from the President of the Council of Ministers and
Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile. PR, Annex 75.
130 Note No. 1022 of 11April 2001, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile to the President of
the Council ofMinisters and Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru. PR, Annex 76.
See Note (GAB) No. 6/25 of 12 April 2001, from the President of the Council ofMinisters and
'"
Ministerof Foreign Affairs of Pern to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile. PR, Annex 77. 82
2.73 On 21 October 2005, the Chilean Government submitted a cIraftconstitutional
lawproposing the creation of anew Region of AricaandParinacota comprising
those two provinces. The cIraftlaw indicated that the liruits of these provinces
were, ta the north, the same as those that had been set out in Chile's Decree
No. 2-18.715 of 1989, which had simply referred ta "the boundary with
Peru"lJl. This formulation posed no problem for Peru given that it did nat
derogatefrom the 1929 Treaty of Lima.
2.74 However, on 13 November 2006, the Chilean Government submitted an
amended cIraftof the same legislation ta the Chilean Senate in which the
liruits of the new region were modified. Instead of describing the northem
liruits of the region as "the boundary with Peru", the amended cIraft of Article
1 of the law changed the provision ta refer ta the boundary as the "parallel of
Boundary :Marker No. 1."133
The draft as proposed on 21 October 2005 by the President ofChile, Ricardo Lagos, provided in
the relevant part as follows:
"Article1.-The XV Region of AricaandParinacota, whose capital city is Arica, which comprises
the current Provinces of Arica and Parinacota ofthe Region ofTarapaca, is hereby created. The
limits of the abovementioned provinces are the ones mentioned in Article 1 of the Decree with
Force of Law No. 2-18.715 of1989, issued by the Ministry ofthe Interior."
(Spanish text reads as follows: "Articul1.-Créase la XV Regi6n de Arica y Parinacota, capital
Arica, que comprende las actuales Provincias de Arica, y Parinacota, de laRegi6n de Tarapaca.
Los limitesde las provincias mencionadas se encuentran establecidos en el articulo 1 dei Decreto
con Fuerza de Ley No. 2-18.715, de 1989, dei Ministerio dei Interior."). PR, Annex 28.
The text of Article 1 of the Decree with Force of Law No. 2-18.715 of 1989 provided: "The
specifie delimitation of the provinces of the 1 Region ofTarapaca is as follows:1.Province of
Arica: To the north: The boundary with Peru, from the Chilean Sea up to the astronomie parallel
of the Huaylas trigonometric .... To the west: the Chilean Sea, from Point Camarones up to the
boundary with Pern."
(Spanish text: "La delimitaci6n especifica de las provincias de la 1 Regi6n de Tarapaca es la
siguiente:1. Provincia de Arica: Al Norte: el limite con Peril, desde el Mar Chileno hasta el
paralelo astron6mico dei trigonométrico Huaylas .... Al Oeste: el Mar Chileno, desde la punta
Camarones hasta el limite con Peru."). PR, Annex 25.
The relevant part ofthe amendment submitted by the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, to
the Chilean Senate reproduced in Bulletin No. 4048-06 of 13 November 2006 reads as follows:
"Article 1 ... The limits of the newRegion shall be as follows: To the North: The boundary with
Pern, from parallel of Boundary Marker No. 1 on the Chilean Sea to the tripartite Boundary 83
2.75 Because this fonnulation was sa patently lnconsistent with the 1929 Treaty of
Lima and the wark of the Joint Commission in 1930, Peru sent two diplomatie
notes (on 10 January and 24 January 2007, respectively) protesting the
proposed amendment 1J4•
2.76 In themeantime, theamendeddraftlaw hadbeensubmitted ta theConstitutional
Court of Chile for its review in confonnity with internal Chilean law. On 26
January 2007, just after the second Peruvian protest had been sent, Chile's
Constitutional Court ruled that the new paragraph of Article 1 of the cIraft
law describing the boundary as the parallel of Boundary :Marker No. 1 was
unconstitutional because its content did nat hear a direct relation with the
m
main ideas that had originally been submitted by Chile's Executive branch .
The law was accordingly revised, and the new law enacted on 23 March 2007
did nat contain the offending passages referring ta the parallepJ:l.
Marker No. 80 in the boundary with Bolivia To the West: the Chilean Sea, from Point
Camarones up to the parallel ofBoundary Marker No. 1, on the boundary with Peru."
(Spanish text: "Articulo 1 ... Los limites de la nueva Region seran los siguientes: Al Norte: el
limite con Peru, desde el paralelo dei Rito No. 1 en el Mar Chileno hastael Rito No. 80 tripartito
de la frontera con Bolivia .... Al Oeste: el Mar Chileno, desde la punta Camarones hasta el
paralelo dei Rito No., en lafronteraconPeru."). PR, Annex 29.
See also Second Report of 5 December 2006, issued by the Government, Decentralization and
Regionalization Commission on the Second Constitutional Reading of Draft Law Creating the
xv Region of Arica and Parinacota and the Province ofTamarugal,in the Region ofTarapacâ.
PR, Annex 30.
Notes (GAB) No. 6/3 of 10 January 2007 and No. 6/4 of24 January 2007, from the Minister of
Foreign Affairs ofPeru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile. PR, Annexes 79 and 80.
Judgment-Case 719 of26 January 2007, issued by the Constitutional Court ofChile, regarding
Drafl: Law creating thexv Region of Arica and Parinacota and the Province ofTamarugal, in
the Region ofTarapacâ. PR, Annex 31.
Law No. 20.175 of23 March 2007, Law Creating the xv Region of Arica and Parinacotaandthe
Province ofTamarugal, in the Region ofTarapacâ. PR, Annex 32. 84
2.77 When considered together with Chile's issuance of a new chart in 1998
modifying the land boundary by suppressing the prolongation of the boundary
along the lO-kilometre arc seaward of Boundary :Marker No. 1, these incidents
reveal how Chile has (unilaterally and unsuccessfully) tried ta alter the course
of the land boundary in an attempt ta build up its daim ta a pre-existing
maritime boundary extending along the parallel of latitude passing tbrough
Boundary :Marker No. 1. However, Chile's maritime boundary daim cannat
possibly bereconciled with thefact that the terminal point on the land boundary
is Point Concordia, nat Bita No. 1.
v. The Significance of the Land Boundary
for Maritime Delimitation
2.78 The fact that the point where the land boundary meets the sea is at Point
Concordia has a number of important consequences for Chile's contention
that there is a pre-existing maritime boundary between the Parties extending
along the parallel of latitude passing through Hito No. 1. While Chile' s
arguments will he addressed in more detail in Chapters III and IV helow, it is
instructive to recall the essence of Chile's position in so far as it depends on
the incorrect identificationof Hito No. 1 as the terminus of the land boundary.
The sequence of argument goes as follows.
2.79 First, Chile maintains that "[t]he point at which the land boundary reaches the
sea determines the parallel of latitude fonning the maritime boundary under
the Santiago Declaration."1]7 Second, Chile asserts that this parallel is the
same one referred to in Article 1 of the 1954 Agreement relating to a Special
Maritime Frontier Zone (what Chile terms the "Lima Agreement")lJ8. Third,
CCM, para. 3.40.
138 Ibid. 85
Chile daims that the Parties decided ta signal that parallel of latitude by
two light towers established in 1968-19691:"". lnstly, Chile argues that "[t]he
Parties thus consensually identified Hito No. 1 as the reference point for the
parallel 'at the point at which the land frontier ... reaches the sea' for purposes
of Article IV of the Santiago Declaration."140 None of these contentions stand
up ta scrutiny for the basic reason that Chile's "parallel of latitude" does nat
reach the sea at Point Concordia, which is the land boundary terminus.
2.80 Apart from the fact that point IV of the Declaration of Santiago only applied
ta a situation where the 200-mile potential entitlements of islands (or groups
of islands) were limited by a parallel (a situation that exists as between Peru
and Ecuadof, but nat as between Peru and Chile), it was nat a delimitation
agreement. The Declaration of Santiago nowhere referred to the 1929
Treaty of Lima, the terminal point on the Peru-Chile land boundary (Point
Concordia), or to Bito No. 1 (which had no status other than being the first
physical boundary marker). Consequently, there was no agreed starting-point
for any maritime boundary between Peru and Chile, no identification of the
co-ordinates of that point, no co-ordinates or indication of the seaward limit
of a putative delimitation line, and no map depicting any resulting maritime
boundary.
2.81 The same can be saidfor the 1954 Agreement relating to a Special :Maritime
Frontier Zone (hereinafter "1954 Agreement on a Special Zone"). It too made
no mention of Point Concordia, and it did not provide for any delimited
boundary extending along the parallel passing through Bito No. 1, which
was also not referred to in the agreement. There was no need for the 1954
Agreement on a Special Zone to address these points because it was not an
international boundary treaty, but only a practical arrangement to establish a
provisional zone of tolerance to avoid conflicts between fishennen.
CCM, para 3.40.
CCM, para 3.44. 86
2.82 With respect ta the 1968-1969 lights, Chile acknowledges that they were
constructed "as a practical solution for a specifie purpose."141 This, as Peru
has explained, was also for the avoidance offishing incidents. It is significant,
in this respect, that when Peru proposed the idea of erecting posts or signs in
1968, it did sa by referring ta a point at which the common border reaches
the sea, "near boundary marker number one."141This wording shows that the
point at which the land boundary reached the sea was nat Hito No. 1, and that
consequently Hito No. 1 did nat represent the land boundary terminus. Chile
accepted Peru's proposal indicating that the land boundary terminus was
nat at Hito No. 1, but rather "near" il,as acknowledged in Chile's Counter-
Memorial 14•
2.83 When the Parties thereafter decided ta erect the two lights in the vicinity of
the land boundary, they agreed that the front light tower would be situated
in Peruvian territory and the rear light in Chilean territory144. Bito No. 1
was chosen as the appropriate location for the front structure because its co
ordinates had been specified in the Final Act of the Joint Commission in 1930
and it was the boundary marker closest to the sea. But this didnot imply that
Bito No. 1 was the terminal point of the land boundary. It was obvious that
the Peruvian lighthouse had to be located far enough from the coast to avoid
being washed away by the sea just as Boundary :Marker No. 1 had been so
located. Given that the land boundary was an arc that extended up to Point
Concordia, it would have been impossible to situate a light structure within
Peruvian territory at that point. The choice of locating the Peruvian light near
Bito No. 1 was for practical purposes; it allowed one of the light beacons to
be located on Peruvian soil.
'" CCM, para. 3.6.
Note No. (J) 6-4/9 of6 February 1968, from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs ofPeru to the chargé
d'affairesi. ofChile (emphasis added). PM, Annex 71.
CCM, paras. 3.22-3.23.
Document of26 April 1968, para.1.PM, Annex 59. 87
2.84 Figure R-2.20 is a satellite image showing the base of the Peruvianlight tower
that was constructed close ta Hito No. 1. That light tower was destroyed by an
earthquake in 2001 (the rubble from the tower can he seen on the image). The
orange line superimposed on the figure depicts the course of the lO-kilometre
boundary arc passing through Bita No. 1. It can be seen that the base of the
light tower lies on Peru's sicle of the boundary, and thus in Peruvian territory
as had been agreed by the Parties.
2.85 In the photo reproduced as Figure R-2.21 a bIne line has been superimposed
ta show the parallel of latitude passing through Bita No. 1 according ta
Chile's thesis. It can be seen that the parallel passes through of the light
structure. Had the bIne line represented either the maritime boundary or
the extension of the land boundary up ta the sea, more than half of the light
structure would have been situated either in Chilean territory or on Chile's
side of the maritime bounelary. This wouldnot have been consistent with the
Parties' agreement, and it was not what was intended to be achieved by the
establishment of the lights.
2.86 It was not necessary for the lights to materialize a precise line extending
from Point Concordia because they were constructed only in order to
provide a general orientation to artisanal fishermen operating near to
the coast, not for purposes of indicating a previously delimited maritime
bounelary. Aligning the lights along the parallel passing through Hito No. 1
was sufficient for this purpose. The delegates of the Parties fonning the
Peru-Chile Commission charged with installing the light towers were
"technical representatives", as Chile's Note of 29 August 1968 confirms 14~.
Their mandate did not involve revisiting or revising in any way the
Note No. 242 of29 August 1968, from the Embassy ofChile to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
'"
ofPeru. PM, Annex 75. 88
delimitation of the land boundary agreed pursuant ta the 1929 Treaty of
Lima and the wark of the Joint Commission in 1930 146•
2.87 The activities related ta the erection of the lights therefore could nat, and
did nat, derogate from the Parties' previous agreement (in the 1929 Treaty
of Lima) on the location of the land boundary, including the fact that it
extended right up ta the coast at Point Concordia. That treaty could only have
been amended with the agreement of the Parties, as reflected by the rules
set farth in Article 39 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
No such amendment ever occurred. Indeed, Chile confirms as much when
it states that, "[w]ith the Treaty of Lima, the 1930 Final Act and the Act
of Plenipotentiaries, all outstanding land-boundary matters were definitively
closed."1 47As the Court observed in the Cameroon-Nigeria case, "while it
may interpret theprovisions of delimitation instruments where their language
requires this, it may not modify the course of the boundary as established by
those instruments."148
2.88 In the present case, the boundary established by the 1929 Treaty of Lima
starts at Point Concordia where the land boundary meets the sea. The stretch
of coast between Point Concordia and the parallel of latitude that passes
through Bito No. 1 isPeruvian. The re.mIt of this is that the maritime areas
lying adjacent to that stretch of coast appertain to Peru. This is another reason
why the Parties could not have agreed a maritime boundary along the parallel
of latitude passing through Bito No. 1; any such line would have cut through
exclusively Peruvian waters. The international delimitation of maritime
boundaries between the Parties must necessarily start from Point Concordia.
See, in this connection,the written Statement of Mr. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar attached as
Appendix B to Vol. II ofthis Reply.
CCM, para. 2.16.
wnd and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria:
Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment,lC.J. Reports2002, p. 370,para 107 and pp. 373-
374,para.123. 89
SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWING THE BASE OF
THE DESTROYED PERUVIAN LlGHT TOWER
,
Figure R-2.20
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BASE OF THE DESTROYED
PERUVIAN LlGHT TOWER AND ITS ALlGNMENT
WITH THE CHILEAN LlGHT TOWER
Chilean light tower
Base of the Peruvian
light tower
FigureR-2.21 91
VI. Conclusions
2.89 This chapter has demonstrated the following key points:
(a) The land boundary between the Parties was fully delimited by the 1929
Treaty of Lima. That treaty provided that the frontier between the two
countries starts from a point on the coast ta be named Concordia.
(b) TheJ oint Commission that subsequendy demarcated theboundary in 1930
was under explicit instructions from the two Governments that the final
portion of the land boundary was defined by a lO-kilometre radius arc
measured from the bridge over the river Lluta, and that the starting
point of the dividing line between the Parties' respective territories was
the intersectionof that arc with the seashore.
(c) The contemporaneous sketch-map prepared by the Chilean member
of the Joint Commission clearly showed that the boundary did nat
stop or start atBita No. 1, but passed through Bita No. 1 along the arc
allthe way up to where it met the sea.
(d) Bito No. 1 was intentionally not placed at the coast, but rather sorne 200
metres inland so as to prevent it from being destroyed by the ocean.
The location of Bito No. 1 was determined by reference to a series of
technical calculations for the placing of the last 12 boundary markers
working from the land towards the sea.
(e) Chile's contention that the land boundary terminus is at Bito No. 1
therefore has no basis.
if) Over a long period of time, Chile's own maps recognized that Point
Concordia is the terminal point on the land boundary, not Bito No. 1.
Peru' s practice was similar and has always been consistent. 92
(g) It was only in 1998 that Chile began ta publish a chart unilaterally
changing the course of the land bounelary by eliminating the final
section of the arc between Hito No. 1 and the sea. The same chart alsa
depicted a putative maritime boundary out ta the sea along the parallel
passing tbroughHito No. 1. For some40 years previously, Chile's maps
showed no such maritime boundary. Peru promptly protested.
(h) Chile also attempted ta buttress its position byfirstplacinasurveillance
boothonPeruvian territory near theland boundary, and second proposing
a change ta its domestic legislation by providing for the northem
boundary of its provinces taextend up ta the parallel of latitude passing
tbrough Bita No. 1. Neither of these initiatives was successful. The
surveillance booth was taken clown, and Chile's Constitutional Court
ruled that the amended cIraftlaw making reference ta a changed land
boundary was unconstitutional.
(i) Any maritime boundary hetween the Parties must start from Point
Concordia. Neither the 1952 Declaration of Santiago, nor the 1954
Agreement on a Special Zone, nor the 1968-1969 light arrangements
provided for any maritime boundary extending from that point. The
maritime boundary starting from Point Concordia remains to he
delimited by the Court. CHAPTERIII
THE 1952 DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
1. Introduction
3.1 Chile's position in this case is clear and unambiguous. Chile argues explicitly
and repeatedly that the international maritime boundary was establisbyd
agreement between Peru and Chile in the 1952 Declaration of Santiago.
3.2 Chile says:"in the Santiago Declaration of 1952, Chile and Peru delimited
their maritime zones using the parallel of latitude passing tbrough 'the point
at which the land frontier of the States concemed reaches tsea'''14and
that "[t]he agreement of the Parties concerning the lateral delimitation of
their respective maritime zones is contained in Article IV of the Santiago
Declaration"l:50; and also that "[s]ince the Santiago Declaration, parallels of
latitude have been agreed as all-purpose maritime boundaries along the west
coast of South America"l I~says that "the parallel of latitude agreed in
the Santiago Declaration liruits all seaward extensions of the States parties'
maritime zones"1 ~d2;hat "[t]here is long-standing recognition ... that the
Chile-Peru maritime boundary has been fully delimited agreement."l~J
,.
CCM, para 2.3.
CCM, para 2.5.
CCM, para 1.8.
CCM, para 1.12. Cf, CCM, paras. 1.16,1.30,1.51,2.3,2.6,2.81,2.150.
CCM, para 1.17. 94
3.3 Chile refers ta "[t]he agreement on maritime boundaries in the Santiago
Declaration" and "[t]he maritime boundary agreed in the Santiago
Declaratio .n"1~4
3.4 Chile identifies the heartof this case in the following words: "ultimately
this case turns on fundamental rules of pacta sun! servanda and stability of
boundaries Th"epac~tum in question is the 1952 Declaration of Santiago;
and Chile' s case stands or falls on its status and - if it is legally binding - upon
its precise meaning and legal effect. This is the case that Chile has presented
in its Counter-Memorial; and this is the case ta which Peru responds.
3.5 This chapter accordingly reviews the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. Insofar
as Chile daims that the Declaration of Santiago is a binding treaty, it would
necessarily follow that the question must he approached as a matter of treaty
interpretation -of the interpretation of the actual tenns of the Declaration of
Santiago.
3.6 Peru's case rests on two basic propositions: First,that the Declaration of
Santiago was not, and was not intended to be, a legally-binding instrument
establishing international maritime boundaries. Second, that on a plain
reading of the text of the Declaration of Santiago it is obvious that the text
was a declaration of international maritime policy which (regardless of its
legal status) cannot have the effect as an international boundary treaty that
Chile tries to ascribe to it.
3.7 This chapter of Peru's Reply addresses those two propositions. It begins by
recalling the key episodes that illuminate the manner in which and the purpose
for which the 1952 Declaration of Santiago was drafted and announced. It can
CCM, para 1.9. Cf., CCM, para 1.22.
CCM, para 1.21. 95
thus he seen why it was that the Declaration of Santiago took the farm that it
did. The chapter then analyses the status and meaning of the text as a matter
of intemationallaw. In this way Peru demonstrates that the Declaration of
Santiago was nat intended ta constitute, and did nat constitute, an agreement
establishing an international maritime boundary between Peru and Chile.
3.8 It is an incontestable fact that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago does nat
expressly refer ta an international maritime boundary. Chile's case relies
upon the argument that in the Declaration of Santiago the participating States
impliedly adopted a parallel adumbrated in the 1947 unilateral daims made
independently by Chile and Peru. That is why the events leading up ta the
adoption of the Declaration are crucial in this case. It is the characterization
of those facts that lies at the heart of this dispute.
3.9 In essence, Peru and Chile differ over their reading of history. Where Peru
sees a series of tentative responses to the pressure of circumstances, whose
long-term legal significance was rarely contemplated and often unclear,
Chile purports to see the patient and incremental working out of a carefully
planned legal régime that solidified, rapidly and unnoticed, into a permanent
international maritime boundary. Umavelling the fabric that Chile has woven
requires attention to the precisenature of the strands from which it is made, and
particular care in assessing the legal implications of acts done and statements
made in circumstances where the authors did not intend to assert or base
themselves upon a legal analysis.
3.10 The 1947 claims by Peru and Chile, like the 1952 Declaration of Santiago,
derived from the acknowledgement that the traditional extension of the
territorialsea and a contiguous zone (which together extended only a dozen
miles from the coast) were insufficient to guarantee the coastal State's right to
protect, conserve and develop the resources of the seas adjacent to its coasts
for the benefit of its people. 96
3.11 Chile andPeru were the first countries in the world ta daim rights - sovereign
rights and jurisdiction - in respect of the living resources of the sea out ta 200
nautical miles from their coasts. In this sense, the unilateral claims of 1947
and the 1952 Declaration of Santiago are at the root of the concept of the
200-nautical-mile maritime zone consecrated by the modem law of the sea.
But that does nat mean that it isaccurate ta regard the 1947 unilateral daims
of Chile and Peru and the zone envisaged by the Declaration of Santiago as
having the same precise and well-defined juridical character as the exclusive
economic zone recognized by the modern law of the sea.
3.12 Thus, the 1947 daims and the 1952 Declaration of Santiago asserted
the rights of the coastal States while recogmzmg the navigational and
communications rights of third States tbrough the waters in question :56and
even the possibility of accepting the exploitation of the resources of the seas
adjacent to the coastal States by nationals of third States, as long as they
complied with non-discriminatory regulations adopted by the coastal State.
The zones proclaimed in 1947 and 1952 were embryonic manifestations of
the concept that evolved into the exclusive economic zone. But the fact that
these measures heavily influenced the later development of the exclusive
economic zone must not obscure the fact that at the time of their adoption
they were tentative, provisional steps testing the limits of intemationallaw
as it then stoodl Th7ee was considerable confusion as to what the 1947
See paras. 3.63,3.136-3.138,3.16.37 below.
As, indeed, theymight also be said to have been the precursors of the concept ofpreferential
rights over high seas resources. See, e.g., Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic ofGermany
v.lceland), Merits, JudgmenlC.J.Reports 1974,pp. 25-27, paras. 57-60; and separate opinion
of Judge Federico De Castro, Fisheries Jurisdiction, (Federal Republic ofGermany v. 1celand),
Merits, Judgment, lC.J. Reports 1974, pp. 80-88, paras. 1-8. Other elements of the 1952
Declaration of Santiago, such as the idea that the rules were ultimately rooted in the concept
of human rights, did not flourish as the basic concept developed. See, e.g., the comments of
Dr. Alberto Ulloa: "Underlying all the new Maritime Law is the concept of Ruman Rights;
the abilityf mankind to take advantage of the natural resources for whom International Law 97
measures and the Declaration of Santiago purported ta dOl~ T8.is unsettled
situation was recognised by the Court in 1974 in its judgment in the Fisheries
Jurisdiction cases, where it remarked on the lack of agreement on the scope
of the entitlements of States ta maritime zones that was evident at the time of
m
the first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958 .
3.13 The Declaration of Santiago did nat establish a prototype exclusive economic
zone: it spelled out the basic principles of an international maritime poliey,
sorne, but nat all, of which were implemented or adopted in a wide range
of measures and practices, national and international, in the decades that
followed. This is the context in which the 1947 daims, and the Declaration of
Santiago, were drawn up.
exists. This is about anew concept which was hitherto unknown in International Law. In another
category, inferiorut analogous, we cannot ignore mentioning the idearelated to the conservation
ofmaritime species. This is also anew concept in International Law, as it was previously thought
thatmaritime Fishing and Hunting were inexhaustible and could be exploited uncaringly." Ulloa,
Alberto: "Speech by Dr. Alberto Ulloa, Head of the Peruvian Delegation to the 1958 Geneva
Conference, General Debate of the First Committee held on 5 March 1958". (Revista Peruana
de Derecho Internacional, Tomo XVIII, No. 53, 1958, Enero-Junio, pp. 17-18). PR, Annex 59.
See also GarciaSayân, Enrique: "Speech by Dr. Enrique Garcia Sayân, Peruvian Delegate at the
General Debate ofthe Second Committee held on 13 March 1958". Ibid., p. 47. PR, Annex 60.
See the comments ofMéndez Silva, Ricardo: El Mar Patrimonial en América Latina. México,
Universidad Aut6noma de México, 1974, p. 26: "Itis useful to point out that ... the legal nature
of the 200-mile zone was not defined clearly. The decrees of Chile and Peru indicate that the
claims over the 200-mile zone do not affect the right to free navigation of ships of all nations.
The Declaration ofSautiago establishes that it does not affect the right to innocent passage. None
ofthe instruments qualify this zone as territorial sea; nonetheless, the right of innocent passage,
stipulated inhe Declaration of Sautiago, is a unique legal element of the territorial sea Even to
this day... the controversy over the legal nature of the zone between the Latin American States
continues."
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. 1celand), Merits, Judgment,lC.J.
Reports 1974, pp. 22-24, paras. 50-54. 98
II. The 1952 Declaration of Santiago and Ils Background
A. CH:rLE'sCLAIM: TIIAT TIIE DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
HAs ITsORIGINS IN 1RE UNILATERAL CLAIMSOF1947
3.14 While Chile's main contention is that an international maritime boundary
between the Parties was agreed in the 1952 Declaration of Santiago, it alsa
argues that it accepted that its own 200-mile zone claimed in 1947 was
laterally bounded in the north by a parallel of latitude abutting Peru' s 200-
mile zone declared in the same year, and that the Parties' two daims were
thus "concordant"lOO.In this manner, Chile tries ta paint the 1947 claims as the
precursors ta the 1952 Declaration of Santiago, which it asserts "constitutes
a comprehensive and complete boundary between the Parties."161 This
argument cannat he reconciled with Chile's legislation at the time or with its
contemporary conduct.
B. THE PuRPOSE AND CHARACTER OF TIIE1947 CLAIMS
3.15 Chile refers ta the two 1947 daims as "Concordant Unilateral
Prodamations"161. It is not clear what is meant by this. The daims were
dosely related in time and in their objectives: but they were not co-ordinated
and were in no sense agreed by Chile and Peru. There was no agreement on
the tenns of the daims; nor was there an agreement that the two States would
take parallel but unilateral steps. They were concordant only in the sense that
they are similar to one another.
CCM, para 1.29. Chile deals with the developments between the 1947 claims and the 1952
Declarationof Santiago at pages 50-97 of its Counter-Memorial.
CCM, para 1.9.
CCM, p. 50. 99
3.16 It is cornillon ground that bath Peru and Chile were concerned by the
exploitation by foreign fleets of whale and fish stocks in the waters off
their coasts16J;although from Peru's perspective it is clear that the primary
foeus in 1947 was upon whaling rather than upon fishing. The International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling had been adopted in December
1946 and was seen by both Peru and Chile as inimical ta their interests 10,and
the 1947 daims addressed this issue1 C6hle.does nat contest the account of
the background ta these daims that is given in Peru's Memorial.
1. Legal Character ofChile's 1947 Proclamation and Peru's Supreme Decree
3.17 Chile has misunderstood an important difference between the two daims.
It says that "[e]ach State's 200M zone was immediately established by its
respective proclamation, without theneedfor any furtherfonnality or enacting
legislation."lOO
3.18 It isfor Chile to explain to the Court the provisions of its own law; but Peru
observes that there are clear indications that the Chilean "Proclamation" did
not have legal force.
3.19 First, Chile's 1947 declaration was an expression of political will that did
not have the nature of a legal nonn 16. While Chile's Counter-Memorial
characterizes the Proclamation as "official"168, it was never published in the
CCM, paras. 2.22-2.24. See also Garcia Sayân, EnriquNotas sobre la Soberania Maritima
de! Peru - Dejènsa de la200 millas de mar peruano ante las recientes transgresio1955.
CCM, Annex 266.
See the account in Whiteman, Marjorie M Digest of Internationww, Vol. 4, Departmentof
State Publications, 1965, pp. 1053-1061.
PM, paras. 4.42-4.45.
CCM, para 2.30.
Chile's 1947 daim was discussed in PM, paras. 4.45-4.49.
CCM, para 2.21. !OO
Official Gazette of Chile as an official decree; rather, it appeared in a daily
newspaper 1OO•Given that publication in the Official Gazette was a pre-requisite
170
for an instrument ta have the force oflaw ,it follows that Chile' s contention
that its 200-mile zone originally declared in 1947 was "immediately established
... without the needfor any further fonnality or enacting legislation" is plainly
l7l
wrong •
3.20 Second, a number of respected Chilean authors have acknowledged this point.
For example, the Chilean diplomat Luis Melo Lecaros, described Chile's 1947
declaration in the following way:
"The 1947 Presidential Declaration, logically, does nat have
any legal value. Our Constitution does nat establish this sort
of documents and it can only he deemed as an expression of
the interest of having a positive law on the matter, but never ta
give it the value of a law that can modify a previous law which
is in force and has heen enacted in the same way as the Civil
Code."l7l
PM, para 4.45. See also Presidential Declaration Concerning Continental Shelf of23 June 1947.
PM, Annex 27.
Article 6 of the Chilean Civil Code of 1855, in force in 1947, set forth: "The law does not
compel unless it is promulgated by the President of the Republic .. The promulgation must
be done in the official journal; and the date of promulgation will be, for its legal effects, the
date of such journal." (Spanish text: "La lei no obliga sino en virtud de su promulgaci6n por
el Presidente de la Repiiblica .. La promulgaci6n debeni hacerse en el peri6dico oficial; i la
fecha de la promulgaci6n sera, para los efectos legales de ella, la fecha de dicho peri6dico.").
PR, Annex 17.
CCM, para. 2.30.
Melo Lecaros, Luis: "El Derecho dei Mar". (Revista de Derecho, Universidad de Concepci6n,
Ano XXVII, No. 110, 1959, Octubre-Diciembre, pp. 424-425). Luis Melo Lecaros was one of
the experts invited to assist the United Nations Secretariat with preparation for the first United
Nations Conference on the Law ofthe Sea See United Nations Doc. A/CONF.13f20, Preparation
of the Conference: Report of the Secretary-General. Available at: <http://untreaty.un.org/cod
diplom aticconference s/lawofthese a-1981doc sienglish/vol_ 1/18_A-CONF -13-20_PrepDo cs_
vol_I_e.pdf> accessed 8 October 2010. See also the views of the Chilean diplomat Enrique
Bernstein, which are to the same effect, in: Bernstein Carabantes, Enrique: Recuerdos de un
diplomatico. Haciendo camino, 1933-1957. Santiago de Chile, Editorial Andrés Bello, 1984, pp.
102-103. 101
3.21 Similar views were expressed by Jaime Rivera Marfan (a respected Chilean
commentator) in his treatise on the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. He writes:
"On 23 June 1947, the Govemment of Chile, through the
President of the Republic, Gabriel Gonz81ez Videla, issued
an Official Declaration that, although it has no legal value,
constituted a fonnulation of the principles on which our
country would base itself, later, ta sign the 1952 Declaration on
the :Maritime Zone together with Ecuacbr and Peru, where it
affinned its international PJlicy on these matters.
As we have already saieI, the value of this Declarationislimited
ta being an expression of our Government's thoughts on these
matters, and of being an immediate precedent ta the 1952
Agreement; but ithas no value for the domestic law because it was
nat enacted by any of the means established by the Constitution
and the laW3,unlike what the United States and Mexico had
ckme, by supplementing or enacting their proclamations by
means of {Xecutive orders or decrees.
A declaration of this sort also lacks value before international
law; if aState cannot enforce it upon its nationals and within
its own territory, where it exercises absolute jurisdiction, all the
more reason for it not to 1Jable to enforce it upon other nations
over which suchjurisdiction does not exist."l7J
Rivera Marfân, Jaime: w Declaraci6n sobre Zona Maritima de 1952 (Chile-Peru-Ecuador).
Santiago de Chile, Editorial Juridica de Chile, Universidad Cat6lica de Chile, Facultad de
Ciencias Juridicas,liticay Sociales, MemoriaNo. 27, 1968pp. 29 and 31. 102
3.22 Likewise, Patricio Arana Espina remarked on the lack of legal endorsement
for the Chilean Declaration:
''This Declaration,thoughnever enacted into a legal instrument,
constitutes the first precedent in the world concerning the
two-hundred-nautical mile daim. Subsequendy, following the
Chilean example, many countries, especially Latin American,
extended their sovereignties ta a distance equal ta the one
establishedby our country."174
3.23 Third, the lack of legal effect of the 1947 Chilean declaration appears ta have
been a necessary conclusion because its content was inconsistent with the
provisions of Chilean law as it stood at the time. As of 1947, the only Chilean
law in force relating ta Chile's maritime zones was Article 593 of the Chilean
Civil Code. That article, which datedfrom the 1855 edition of the Civil Code,
provided as follows:
''Article593. The adjacent sea, up to a distance of one marine
league, measured from the low-water mark, constitutes the
territorial sea and belongs to the public domain; save that the
right of policing, with respecto matters conceming the security
of the country and the observance of fiscal laws, extends up
to a distance of four marine leagues, measured in the same
manner."17~
3.24 Given that one marine league equals three nautical miles, Article 593 of the
Civil Code provided for a three-mile territorial sea and a I2-mile policing
zone for security and fiscallaw purposes. It provided for no other zones.
'" Arana Espina, Patricio: "Las regulacionesde pescà'. In: Qrrego Vicufia, Francisco (ed.),
Preservacion y Medio Ambiente Marino. Estudios presentados al Seminario Internacional
sobre Preservacion deI Medio Ambiente Marino, organizado por el Instituto de Estudios
Internacionales de la Universidad de Chile. 25-27 de Septiembre de 1975. Chile, Universidad
Técnica dei Estado, 1976, p. 101.
'" Chilean Civil Code of 1855. PM, Annex 25. 103
The 1947 Chilean declaration did nat change this position. Indeed, Article
593 remained unchanged until 1986, when it was amended ta provide for
a I2-mile territorial sea, and a new provision was added providing for a
200-mile exclusive economic zone and for continental shelf rights (Article
596)176.And it will be appreciated that since there were, as of 1947, no
zones provided for in Chilean law extending out ta 200 miles, Chile' s 1947
declaration could nat have established a 200 mile zone bounded by a parallel
of latitude with Peru 17•
3.25 It appears from doctrinal sources that Chile did at one time consider amending
its Civil Code ta reflect elements of the 1947 declaration. Ultimately,
however, Chile decided nat ta do sa because of the problems that would have
been encountered enacting such legislation before the Chilean Congress. As
the former Secretary-General of the Permanent Commission for the South
Pacifie, Professor Hugo Llanos Mansilla (a Chilean national), explained:
"Indeed, the enactment of a decree clashed with the legal
provision setout in Article 593 of the Civil Code which enshrined
as territorial sea the adjacent sea up to a distance of one marine
league (three nautical miles), measured from the low-water
mark. To propose the passing of a law to have this provision
amended (only done in 1986, with Law 18.565) implied not only
a delay,but also a gruelling task of persuading Congress of the
virtues and advantages of such a revolutionary thesis that ran
against a century-old tradition."l78
LawNo. 18.565 of13 October 1986, Amendment to the Civil Code Regarding Maritime Spaces.
PM, Annex 36.
m Consequently,not a single Chilean author at thisime suggested that the 1947 daims had
established an international maritime boundary between Chile aud Peru.
Llanos Mansilla, Hugo: "Las 200 millas y sus consecuencias en el Derecho dei Mar". In: Llanos
Mansilla, Hugo (ed.),Los cincuenta anos de la tesis chilena de las doscientas millas marinas
(1947-1997), Santiago de Chile, Universidad Central de Chile, 1998, pp. 25-26. 104
3.26 More direct evidence ta the same effect is provided by Chilean diplomat
Enrique Bernstein, who served twice as Under-Secretary of the Chilean
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He explained the :Ministry's reservations
conceming plans ta issue a decree that included the text of the declaration of
1947, and explained the reason why the Chilean daim of 1947 was issued as
a "Declaration" rather than as a "supreme decree":
"As soon as he came into office, President Gonz81ez Videla took
note that whaling, together with the exploitation of ather species
of our marine resources at the hands of foreign fleets, had a very
unfavourable projection for Chile. Having previously consulted
his :Minister of Economy, Roberto Wachholtz, on the matter; he
sent the :Ministry of Foreign Affairs acIraftSupreme Decree by
means of which national sovereignty over the continental shelf
adjacent ta the coast was proclaimed, reserving Chile's fishing
and hunting activities to a distance of 200 miles.
This draft caused a stir in the :Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which
by obligation and tradition, is always prudent and prudish. The
matter was passed on, for further study, to the Department that
1was responsible for. ... However, the draft decree that was sent
to us for consultation appeared to everyone to he quite reckless.
1 submitted it to an {Xhaustive examination by the technical
offices of the:Ministry. Its provisions seemed to heirreconcilable
with those in the Civil Ccxle, which restricted up to a distance of
four leagues only their right of policing the sea. Nor did it agree
with the existing nonns of international law. It furthennore
seemed indispensable to consult other public divisions, notably
the Navy, which would he in charge of the enforcement of such
a Decree. Finally, a previous inquiry amongst other American
countries was recommended.
We finally voiced our opinion. We deemed it indispensable to
previously modify all pertinent articles of the Civil Code. A law
was required to this effect, otherwise the Comptroller's Office
would surely object to the Supreme Decree. We also foresaw
sorne difficultiesfrom the point of view of internationallaw. 105
The issuing of a 'Declaration' instead of a Supreme Decree was
intended ta avoid the Comptroller's objections. And even if the
internallegal effects of the Presidential gesture were dubious,
the desired international implct was accomplished"170
3.27 Fourth, subsequent Chilean legislation identifies the 1952 Declaration of
Santiago, nat the 1947 Declaration, as the legal origin of Chile' s 200-nautical
mile daim. Thus, Decree No. 453 of 18 July 1963 issued by the :Ministry of
Agriculture of Chile and published in the Official Gazette on 26 August 1963,
stipulated that:
"1. Licences for the operation of fishing factory ships, within the
200-mile zone, established in the Declaration on maritime zone,
of 18 August 1952, enacted as law of the Republic by decree No.
432, of 23 September 1954, issued by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, shall only he granted ta ships of Chilean flag."l80
3.28 In contrast to the position of the Chilean declaration, the 1947 Peruvian claim
was contained in a piece oflegislation - Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1August
1947, published in the Official Gazette, which declared national sovereignty
and jurisdiction over the adjacent waters, specifically extending its control
out to 200 miles from the coast.
Bernstein Carabantes, Enriqueop. cit.pp. 102-103.
Decree No. 453 of 18 July 1963, Regulation of Pennits for the Exploitation by Factory Ships
in the Specified Zone. (Emphasis added). (Spanish text: "1. Los pennispara la operaci6n de
barcos fâbrica pesqueros, dentro de la zona de 200 millas, establecida en la Declarasobre
zona maritima, de 18 de Agosto de 1952, promulgada como ley de la Repiiblica por decreto N°
432, de 23 de Septiembre de 1954, expedido por el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriors6lo se
otorgarân para barcos de bandera chilena."). PM, Annex 32. 106
3.29 These points are nat made simply in order ta correct the account given by
Chile in its Counter-Memorial. They have a direct bearing upon the case. They
demonstrate that the 1947 Chilean Presidential declaration did nat create any
maritime zone in Chilean legislation. It is for Chile ta explain ta the Courthow
a bilateral maritime boundary could have been established between Peru's
legally-existent maritime zone and Chile's declared but legally non-existent
maritime zone.
3.30 The 1947 daims were most definitely no! coordinated legal measures. They
were nat carefully-engineered, coordinated parallel legal components that
were subsequendy bolted together in the 1952 Declaration of Santiago ta
produce a stable, sophisticated, integrated, legal régime for the South-East
Pacifie. The daims were innovative, speculative steps taken unilaterally in
response ta an immediate problem. The certainty and stability of the legal
régime that they foreshadowed and envisaged did not develop until many
years later.
2. The Use afthe 'Mathematical Paralle/' ta Canstruct the Seaward Baundary
3.31 With regard to the 1947 Chilean proclamation and the Peruvian supreme
decree Chile says that "[b]oth texts addressed the issue of the perimeter of the
maritime zone in which sovereignty and jurisdiction were claimed."181 But
Chile's own account of the declarations disproves this.
3.32 Chile quotes a provision in the 1947 Chilean Proclamation which stated that
Chile's maritime zone was "within the perimeter formed by the coast and
the mathematical parallel projected into the sea at a distance of 200 nautical
miles from the coasts of Chilean territory."182Chile also quotes the provision
CCM, para. 2.31.
182 CCM, para. 2.31. 107
in the Peruvian supreme decree which stipulated that Peru's maritime zone
covered the area "between the coast and an imaginary parallel Iille ta it at
a distance of two hundred (200) nautical miles measured following the line
of the geographical parallels."18J It describes the Chilean declaration and
the Peruvian supreme decree as "substantially similar in farm, content and
effect."l84 The implication is that the Chilean declaration defined the boundary
or perimeter [Greekperi (around); meter (measure)] that encircled and thus
defined the entire liruit of the respective maritime zones of the two States.
3.33 But Chile also states that its concept of the "mathematical parallel" "is a
technical concept which in effect leads ta a farm of tracé parallèle of the
coast1ine A"t1te~ ime Chile did nat prepare any map ta accompany its
1947 daim in order ta depict the effect of this technical concept. It now offers
a verbal explanationof how this operated (by reference to the case of Peru):
"The 'imaginary parallel line' fonning the seaward limit of
Peru's maritime daim was to be formed by taking each point
of the Peruvian coastline and moving it due west, along the
corresponding p1rallel of latitude, for 200 nautical miles to a
point in the PacificOcean. The aggregate of those points in
the Pacific Ocean fonned that 'imaginary parallelline'. To use
the tenns employed by the Court, Peru's outward limit was a
form of tracé parallèle, a method 'which consists of drawing
the outer limitof thebeltof territorial waters by following the
coast in a1lits sinuosities'''l86.
3.34 Chile's reasoning then rUllSas follows. First, it assumes that this retrospective
explanation of Chile's own declaration must be applied to Peru's 1947
CCM, para 2.32.
CCM, para 2.29.
CCM, para 2.31.
CCM, para 2.33 (footnote omitted). 108
supreme decree. Chile then proceeds ta draw the inference that "[t]he method
employed by Peru ta measure the outward liruit of its maritime zone also
detennined thenorthern and southemlaterallimits of its zone."187It is a perfect
example of a petitio principii. The inference assumes that the northemmost
and southernmost parallels oflatitude usedfor the technical cartographie task
of constructing the tracé parallèle were also ta he used as the international
maritime boundaries of Peru. But nothing in Peru's supreme decree states or
implies that the application of the cartographie technique had as a side-effect
the establishment of an international maritime boundary.
3.35 It willhe noted that Peru's 1947 supreme decree in fact contains two material
provisions. Chile quotes the third operativeparagraph of Peru's decree, which
contains the reference ta the 200-nautical-mile zone the outer limit of which
188
is described in tenns of a tracé parallèle • Chile ignores the two paragraphs
that precede paragraph 3, which:
"1. ... declare that national sovereignty and jurisdiction are
extended to the sulJmerged continental or insular shelf adjacent
to the continental or insular shores of national territory,
whatever the depth and extension of this shelf may be.
2. National sovereignty and jurisdiction are exercised as weil
over the sea adjoining the shores of national territory whatever
its depth and in the extension necessary to reserve, protect,
maintain and utilize natural resources and wealth of any kind
which may be found in or below those waters."180
Spanish text reads as follows:
"1. Declarase que la soberania y la jurisdicci6n nacionales se
extienden a la platafonna sulJmarina 0 z6calo continental e
CCM, para. 2.34.
CCM, para. 2.32.
Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947. PM, Annex 6. 109
insular adyacente a las costas continentales e insulares del
territorio nacional, cualesquiera que sean la profundidad y la
extensi6n que almque clicha z6calo.
2. La soberania y la jurisdicci6n nacionales se ejercen también
sobre el mar adyacente a las costas del territorio nacional,
cualquiera que sea su profundidad y en la extensi6n necesaria
p:rra reservar, proteger, conservar y utilizar los recursos y
riquezas naturales de toda clase que en 0 debajo de clichamar se
encuentren."
3.36 It will he observed that in those two paragraphs Peru does no! liruit its daim
ta 200 nautical miles. Peruvian law explicitly asserted that Peru's maritime
daim reaches out as far as "the extension necessary ta reserve, protect,
illaintainand utilize natural resources" of the water column and of the seabed.
Given that the reference ta the tracé parallèle in the 1947 supreme decree
related ta only a part ofPeru's daim - the initial implementation in paragraph
3 of its broader jurisdictional daim set out in paragraphs 1 and2 - it is difficult
to see how it can be thought that the 1947 supreme decree could have been
an element in a co-ordinated establishment of final international maritime
boundaries.
3.37 The relevant provision in paragraph 3 of the 1947 supreme decree was
plainly concerned with the drawing of the "seaward limit" (to use Chile's
own description of it)lDO.Indeed, the entire point of the tracé parallèle is
to draw outer, seaward boundaries of maritime zones: the tracé parallèle
cannot be used to draw lateral boundaries. The reference to the geographical
parallels is expressly tied to the manner of measuring the 200 nautical miles
Ca distance of two hundred (200) nautical miles measured following the
lineof the geographical paralleli'): nothing suggests that the geographical
parallels were also intended to serve as the northern and southern boundaries
CCM, para 2.33, quoted above at para 3.33. 110
of Peru's zone. Nothing in the Peruvian supreme decree suggests that it was
establishing maritime boundaries with Chile and with Ecuador: and Ecuador,
it will he noted, had nat at this time even made a 200-nautical-mile daim of
its OWll.
3.38 Chile asserts that "Peru's maritime zone was conceived in 1947 as a
corridor"lOl and that Peru "fixed the liruits of its maritime zone in 1947
using the same parallels of latitude on which the tbree States agreed in the
Santiago Declaration."lOl It uses this argument ta build the conclusion that the
Declaration of Santiago was an uncontentious consolidation of a pre-existent
understanding on maritime boundaries. That assertion is a wholly baseless
attempt ta rewrite history. There is nat a shred of evidence ta suggest that
Peru conceived its 1947 measure as establishing a "corridor"; andPeru didnot
conceive it in that way. Peru was focused on third States, and the declaration
of the principle that States have rights over the living resources of the seas
adjacent to their coasts that cannot he ignored by distant-water fishennen
from other States.
10J
3.39 Chile's own 1947 declaration escapes close analysis in the Counter
Memorial. It is, however, clear that it did not purport to establish maritime
boundaries with Chile' s neighbours (including Argentina, which had already
made its own claim to the epicontinental sea and continental shelf)lN. Chile' s
declaration claim simply states, in paragraph 4, that it "does not disregard the
similar legitimate rights of other States on a basis of reciprocity".
,,,
CCM, para 2.39.
CCM, para 4.14.
Presidential Declaration Concerning Continental Shelf of23 June 1947. PM, Annex 27.
Argentinean Declaration Proclaiming Sovereignty overthe Epicontinenal Seaand the Continental
'"
Shelf, formulated on 11 October 1946. PM, Annex 90. 111
3.40 There is no express indication in either of the 1947 declarations that they
were intended ta establish the international maritime boundary between Peru
and Chile. If Chile were correct in suggesting that maritime boundaries were
established by implication in 1947, one might have expected ta see those
boundaries describedas such, andrecorded in a treaty, or domestic legislation,
or diplomatie correspondence. But there is nothing. Chile has nat presented
a single document that gives any hint that Peru and Chile intended in 1947
ta establish the international maritime boundary between them or even that
they supposed that such a boundary had come about as a side-effect of their
unco-ordinated unilateral daims.
3.41 One point is particularly telling. If there had been any intention ta co-ordinate
the two maritime zones there would surely have been a fonnal exchange of
notifications between Peru and Chile. But there was no such exchange: each
country acted unilaterally and autonomously. When Peru enacted Supreme
Decree No. 781 conceming its daim of200miles, it addresseda single Circular
Letter to Peruvian Embassies in more than 30 countrie sitO ~h,ile being
among them. That Circular Letter, dated23 September 1947, only summarized
the content of Supreme Decree No. 781, stating that Peru had declared that its
national sovereignty and jurisdiction extended to the continental shelf and to
the sea adjacent to the national coast "up to a parallelline to it, at a distance
of 200 nautical miles". The Circular Letter stated that the text of Supreme
Decree No. 781 should be sent to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of each of
the recipient States for the purposes ofinformation lN •
Circular LeUer No. (D) 2-6-N/27 of 23 September 1947, from the Secretary-Generof the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru to Peruvian Embassies and Missions in: Argentina,
Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia,
Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Great Britain, Guatemala,
Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal,Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, The Netherlands,e United States, Uruguay and Venezuela The full text is set out
asPR, Annex 1.
The Circular LeUer said: "Please find attached a copy ofSupDecree No. 781issued on l
August, declaring that national sovereignty and jurisdiction extend to the continental and insular 112
3.42 Peru sent Chile no more than the Circular Note for information when it
adopted Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1947. Note No. 5-4-:MI45 of8 October
1947 was sent by the Peruvian Ambassador ta the Chilean Minister of Foreign
Affairs. The Peruvian Note made no mention whatsoever of the Chilean
declaration of 23 June 1947, of the Note by which Chile had brought its own
declaration ta the attention of the Peruvian Govemment, or ta any exchange
of information between the two States on this matter. The Peruvian Note
does nat include any expression that could he construed as suggesting that
an acknowledgment of receipt would have the effect of establishing lateral
maritime boundaries between both countries; naf that would suggest that
the Note represented Peru's half of a mutual recognition of an international
maritime boundary between the countries. As Peru had done when it received
Chile's equivalent communication, Chile's :Ministry of Foreign Affairs
simply acknowledged receipt of the Note: it made no reference to the possible
establishment of an international maritime boundary between both countries,
or to any understanding on the matter.
3.43 Chile's argument from this point onwards focuses upon Peru's practice.
Chile's inability to point to anything in its own practice evidencing the
alleged concordance of unilateral daims establishing an international
maritime boundary is highly significant. How can it be said that there was a
common intention on the part of Chile andPeru to establish lateral boundaries
ohelves adjacent to the coasts ofthe national territory and to the sea adjacent to those coasts up
to a parallelline to it, at a distance of 200 nantical miles. The text ofsaid Supreme Decree shall
be sent to the attentionhe Foreign Ministry ofthatcountrfor the purposes ofinformation."
(Emphasis added). (Spanish text: "Acompaiio al presente oficio copia dei Decreto Supremo No.
781, expedidoel 1 de agosto ultimo, por el que se declara que la soberania y lajurisdicci6n
nacionales se extienden a la plataforma subm a0z6calo continental e insular adyacente a las
costas dei territorio nacional y aldyacente a dichas costas hasta una linea paralela a éstas,
trazada a 200 millas marinas. El texto de dicho Decreto Supremo se servira usted, ponerlo en
conocimiento de la Cancilleria de ese pais, en via de informaci6n."). 113
when Chile is unable ta produce a single piece of contemporaneous evidence
showing that it held that intention itself?
3.44 The only materials ta which Chile points are a handful of later secondary
sources. The earliest, a depiction described by Chile as "contemporaneous",
appears in E. Garcia Sayan's Notas sobre la Soberania A1aritima del Pern,
a book which in fact post-dates nat only the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
but also later developments such as the 1954 agreements. Chile says that
"[h]is contemporaneous depiction of Peru's maritime zone ... shows the
zone bounded in the north and south by the two parallels of latitude ... "107.
The implication is that the Iines of latitude that "bounded" the zone were
international maritime boundaries.
3.45 That is a distortion. In fact, nothing in Garcia Sayan's text - either in the
passages quoted by Chile 108or elsewhere in the wark - gives any indication
that he thought that Peru' s 1947 decree established an international maritime
boundary. Chilereproduces, as Figure 4 (after p. 60) in the Counter-Memorial,
a sketch-map included in Garcia Sayan's book and suggests that it depicts
lateral boundaries ofPeru's maritime zone. But the sketch-map is not referred
to at all in Garcia Sayan's text 1O• Moreover, the sketch-map indicates the
seaward boundary of the 200-nautical-mile zone with a thick black line but
has no such line at the north or south of the zone. The sketch-map shows
that the outer limit is 200 nautical miles from the coast, measured along the
parallels: but there isno basis whatever for asserting that it indicates lateral
boundaries for Peru's maritime zone.
CCM, para 2.35.
Garcia Sayân, Enrique, op. cit. CCM, Annex 266.
The provenance ofthe sketch-map is unclearItappeared in the first edition but not in the second
edit ionf Garcia Sayân's book. 114
3.46 Chile's argument- orrather its suggestion - isbasedonce again upon the same
petitio principii. The sketch-map included in the book can heread as depicting
international maritime boundaries only if one makes an initial assumption
that the parallels of latitude used ta construct the line had somehow come ta
have the status of international maritime boundaries; and they had nat.
3.47 Chile also refers ta the thesis written by a geographer, Eraclides Vergaray
Lara, entitled El A1ardel PerU es una Regi6n Geogrâfica 2OOand published in
1962. It is no more helpful ta Chile. It does nat refer ta maritime boundaries
between Peru and neighbouring States. It says nothing ta suggest that such
international maritime boundaries exist. It simply purports ta describe the
maritime "region" created by Peru' smaritime zone. The accompanying sketch-
map (from which Chile omits the footnote stating that "This information is
provisional")l°l, depicts no lateral boundaries.
3.48 The same is true of the third text adduced by Chile in support of its daim
that the 1947 Peruvian supreme decree established an international maritime
boundary: 1. L. Bustamante y Rivero's Derecho del A1ar 0,-published a
quarter-century after the decree, in 1972. This workrefers to the construction
of the zone by use of the measurement of the 200-nautical-mile distance along
the parallel,but says nothing to suggest that the method used to draw the outer
limit would have as a side effect the production of a line that constitutes an
international maritime boundary. Chile has chosen to overlook Bustamante' s
1953 wode, much doser to the relevant time, which also gives no indication
200 Vergaray Lara, Eniclides: El Mar de! Peru es una Region Geogrdfica. Asociaci6n Nacional
de Ge6grafos Peruanos, Anales, Vol. III, 1962. CCM, Annex 314. The sketch-map appears as
Figure 5, afier page 60 ofthe CCM.
Ibid.,p.31.
Bustamante y Rivero,J.L : Derecho deI Mar - La Doctrina Peruana de las 200 Millas, 1972.
CCM, Annex 255. 115
whatever that Bustamante thought that lateral boundaries had been established
in 1947 or in 1952 lO• The same is true again of an agricultural statistics
document from 200(}'-04a,lso cited by Chile m .
3.49 The diplomatie Notes cited by Chilé'-06b , y which Chile and Peru fonnally
notified each ather in 1947 of their 200-nautical-mile daims, contain no hint
whatever that the claims had established an international maritime boundary
between the two States. Therefore, there was no reason for Peru ta protest, as
Chile erroneously suggests.
3.50 It is remarkable that in these diplomatie Notes there is no mention - nat the
slightest hint - that either Peru or Chile thought that the instruments about
which they wrote and whose existence they "acknowledged without protest",
.. the decree itself establishes that its provisions do not affect the right of freedom of navigation
by ohips ofall nations. And implicitly, it also has it understood that - if the nonns ofjuridical
henneneutics are properly applied - the acts of sovereignty perfonned by the Pern vian State
in the zone will be restricted only to the pUiposes of the proclamation, i.e., to the protection,
conservation and defence of the natural resources found therein and, as a consequence, to the
surveillance and regulation of these national economic interests. Ali in all, this entails the
announcement of the exercise of sorne degree of control and of a certain jurisdiction to these
effects; in other words, something thatis substantially identical to what the United States of
America proclaimed in 1945. Hence, whether or not we like it, for the 'Truman Proclamation',
jurisdiction and control are acts of sovereignty; albeit even relative or partial, as applied to a
certainmatter and within an international cornmunit y order or system." Bustamante y Rivero,
JoséLuis:"Las Nuevas Concepciones Juridicas sobre Dominio Territorial dei Estado y Soberania
Maritima (Memoria que contiene la exposici6n de motivos dei Decreto Supremo expedido por
el Gobiemo dei Peril el 1 de agosto de 1947)", Madrid, 1953. (Revista de! Foro, Colegio de
Abogados de Lima, Ano XLI, No. 3, 1954, Setiembre-Diciembre, pp. 480-481).
Ministry of Agriculture, Peru: EstadisticaAgraria2000,2002. CCM, Annex 194.
CCM, para 2.40.
CCM, para 2.41. See Note No. 621/64 of 24 July 1947, from the Ambassador of Chile to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru. CCM, Annex 52; Note No. 5-4-M/45 of8 October 1947,
from the Ambassador of Peru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile. CCM, Annex 53;
Note No. (D)-6-4/46 of 17 November 1947, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru to the
Ambassador of Chile. CCM, Annex 54; and, Note No. 015799 of 3 December 1947, from the
Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile (signing for the Foreign Minister) to the Ambassador
ofPeru. CCM, Annex 55. 116
had established an international maritime boundary between the two States.
There could scarcely he a more striking contrast with the prolonged and
laborious bureaucratie process, documented in painstaking detail, with which
delimitation issues were approached by Chile and Peru in 1929-193(}'-o7.If
a 200-mile international maritime boundary had come into being in 1947,
someone would surely have noticed, and someone would surely have made a
note of the fact somewhere inthe governmental records of Chile or Peru. But
there is nothing.
3.51 Chile offers no ather support for its contention that the 1947 declarations
established an international maritime boundary between Peru and Chile.
3. The 'Prior Instances afUse of Parallels of Latitude'
3.52 The only contemporaneous evidence adduced by Chile for its argument that
the maritime boundaries were contemplated in 1947 is in a short section of
the Counter-Memorial headed "Prior Instances of Use ofParallels of Latitude
in the Practice of American States"108.It cites just two such instances. One is
the use of the parallel by Ecuador in the context of the neutrality zone around
North, Central and South America under the 1939 Declaration of Panama. A
glance at themap that isFigure 6 (followingpage 64) in the Counter-Memorial
makes it obvious that the pan-continental neutrality zone was drawn without
reference to the liruits of national maritime zones. But the whole of that zone
See PM, paras. 6.34-6.46. See also Treaty for the Seulement of the Dispute Regarding Tacna
and Arica, with Additional Protocol, signed on 3 June 1929. PM, Annex 45; Final Act of the
Commission of Limits Containing the Description of Placed Boundary Markers of 21 July
1930.PM, Annex 54; Act of 5 August 1930. PM, Annex 55; and, Agreement to Determine the
Boundary Line and Place the Corresponding Boundary Markers at the Points in Disagreement
in thePeruvian-Chilean Limits Demarcation Joint Commission of 24 April 1930 (Identical
InstructionsSent to the Delegates). PM, Annex 87.
CCM, paras. 2.44-2.49. 117
had ta he rested on an assertion by one or ather coastal State of a neutrality
zone off its coasts; and the use of parallels by Ecuador as a convenient way of
describing its part of thatneutrality zone was a reasonablepragmatic approach
ta this issue, applicable in an emergency situation. There is nothing in the fact
of the line, or the texts quoted by Chile, that gives the slightest reason ta
suppose that there was an assumption that international maritime boundaries
followed Iines of latitude. And, of course, in 1939 no 200-mile claims had
been made: even the Truman Proclamations lay six years in the future.
3.53 Chile's second instance, the 1836 Ecuadorean decree on smuggling which
referred ta the "neighbouring State parallel"loo is an unusual and interesting
example of a law that appears ta deny a right of innocent passage tbrough a
tbree-mile territorial sea; but it obviously does not indicate a belief that the
"neighbouring State parallel" constituted an international maritime boundary.
Neither Ecuador nor Peru has ever taken the position that the maritime
boundary between them was established by a parallel of latitude in or before
the 1830s. Indeed, there was not even a settled land boundary between them
llO
at thattime •
3.54 Again, the point is not simply that the evidence adduced by Chile in support
of its case does not begin to support the interpretation that Chile wishes to
put on it. The importantpoint is that this evidence exemplifies the flaw at the
heart of Chile' s case: it wishes the Court to treat each and every reference to
a parallel, regardless of its context, purpose or actual tenns, as a recognition
that any mention of the parallel in relations between Chile and Peru signifies
CCM, para 2.49; CCM, Annex 204.
The land border between Peru and Ecuador was agreed in the Proto col of Peace, Friendship
and Boundaries (Protocolo de Rio de Janeiro) signed in 1942, and the differences that arose
between both countries regardinghe demarcation were settled by means ofthe Presidential Act
of Brasilia in 1998. 118
that the two States were agreed that it should he used as an international
maritime boundary. The conclusion does nat follow from the premises: the
argument is a non sequitur.
3.55 Moreover, it is nat only what is said that must he considered, but alsa what
is nat said. There is no suggestion by Chile that tbroughout the period in
which the International Law Commission (or indeed the subsequent sessions
of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea) was considering the
question of maritime boundaries, it was ever proposed that a Iille of latitude
could bepresumed ta be the boundarylli. Chile cites the example of the agreed
use by France and Spain of a parallel for the delimitation of the territorial
sea lllon their north-south Mediterranean coast (on the Atlantic coast, where
the configuration is much doser ta that of Peru and Chile, an approximation
ta the equidistance line was used ll), and a Bulgarian decree (apparently not
implemented)1l4 in relation to which Chile quite properly records the view of
ILC Rapporteur François that "[c]etterègle ne saurait toutefois êtreconsidérée
que comme une solution pour un cas spécial"m.
3.56 Given the weight attached to the median line as thepresumed boundary in the
absence of historie title or special circumstances, this marginalizing of the
'" See, e.g., the discussion ofthe territorial sea boundary by François, J. P. A., in: United Nations,
Yearbook of the InternationalLaw Commission: Summary Records ofthe 171'! Meeting, (Doc.
A/CN.4/SR.171), 1952, Vol. 1, pp. 180-185.PR, Annex 55.
CCM, para. 2.155.
See Charney, J. 1. and Alexander, L. M.: International Maritime Boundaries. Dordrech, etc.,
Martinus NijhoffPublishers, 1993, Vol. II, pp. 1719-1734.
'" CCM, para 2.153. The 1951 Bulgarian decree quoted by Chile does indeed refer to the parallèle
geographique as the delimitation line, but the line in the 1997 Treaty with Turkey "is based
in principle on a simplified equidistant line to produce ajusand equitable delimitation". See
Charney, J. 1.and Smith, Robertw.:International Maritime Boundaries. The Hague, etc.,Nijhoff,
2002, Vol. IV, pp. 2871-2886, at p. 2874. There is as yet no boundary agreed with Romania
CCM, para. 2.153. 119
parallels of latitude as suited only ta "special cases" is strong evidence against
any suggestion that the use of the parallel of latitude was sa well understood
as a principle in maritime delimitation that a passing reference in a unilateral
declaration ta a parallell was sufficient ta signal an intention on the part of the
States concemed ta fix their international boundary along that parallel. The
arbitrariness of the parallel of latitude stands in stark contrast ta the prima
facie faimess of the equidistance principle - as was clearly recognized at
the time within the ILe where the Chainnan is recorded as having said that
"where the frontier ended on a concave indentation of the coastline, there was
no difficulty about applying the rule of the median line; and indeed the great
majority of the illustrations given by :MI. Whittemore Boggs ll6had been cases
of that kind."ll7
4. Conclusion Concerning the 1947 Claims
3.57 For thereasons set out above it is clear that the 1947 Peruvian supreme decree
and the 1947 Chilean declaration were not "concordant" and did not establish
a lateral international maritime boundary. The significance of this conclusion
is that it mIes out any possibility that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago could
have been based upon an international maritime boundary that had already
been established in 1947 21•
Special Adviser on Geography to the United States State Department and amember of the expert
group advising theILC during its work on the law of the sea.
s
United Nations, Yearbook of the International Law Commission: Summary record of the 171 !
Meeting (Doc. A/CN.4/SR.171), 1952, Vol. 1, p. 182, para. 16; cf., ibid., par17.Available at:
<http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/_cn4_sr171.pdf> accessed 8 October 2010.
See paras. 3.83-3.86 below. 120
c. ABSENCE OF DEVELOPMENTS BETWEEN TIIE 1947 CLAIMS
AND TIIE 1952 DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
3.58 Chile does nat suggest that there were any relevant developments between
1947 and the 1952 Declaration of Santiago.
3.59 It follows that if Chile's argument is correct, the international maritime
boundary between Chile and Peru could only have been established by the
1952 Declaration of Santiago and nat based upon any earlier consensus or
understanding concerning lateral boundaries.
3.60 It will be recalled, however, that there was a significant development in
llO
Peruvian practice during these years. As was explained in the Memorial , in
March 1952 Peru enacted the Petroleum Law No. 11780. That Law provided
for a 200-nautical-mile zone "drawn seaward at a constant distance of 200
miles" from the coast. It thus used what is in effect the "arcs of circles"
method, rather than the earlier method of projecting 200 miles seaward along
the parallelsof latitude and drawing a tracéparallèle. That change in practice,
shortly before the Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation of the
Marine Resources of the South Pacific held in Santiago de Chile in 1952
(hereinafter "1952 Santiago Conference"), reinforces the conclusion that
there was no agreement between Peru and Chile at this time on the drawing
on maritime boundaries.
PM, paras. 4.60-4.61. 121
D. THE 1952 DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
1. The Declaration afSantiago Does Not Purport to Establish any Maritime
Boundaries between the States that Signed the Declaration
3.61 The 1952 Declaration of Santiago is the next development ta he considered.
Chile's argument is that the Declaration of Santiago is a treaty which
establishedan international maritime boundary. In Peru's view that is incorrect
both because the Declaration of Santiago was conceived and drafted as a
declaration of international maritime poliey and nat as a treaty, and because
the text of the Declaration does nat even purport ta address the question of
the international maritime boundary between Chile and Peru. While the legal
status of the Declaration of Santiago might appear ta he a matter logically
prior ta its interpretation, an understanding of the context in which, and
reasons for which, it was draftedmakes it easy to understandits legal status;
and accordingly the question of its context is addressed first.
3.62 Chile repeatedly refers to the Declaration of Santiago (and to point IV in
particular) as if it were a general provision delimiting maritime baundaries,
bath continental and insular. Chile uses phrases such as "as well as delimiting
the 'general' maritime zones, the States parties also had to deal with the
delimitation of one State's insular zone"llO, "[the] agreement of the Parties
conceming the lateral delimitation of their respective maritime zones is
contained in Article IV of the Santiago Declaration"lll, and "Chile, Ecuador
andPeru agreed in the Santiago Declaration of 1952 that their maritime zones
were delimited laterally by parallels"lll. That is not what the Declaration of
Santiago says.
CCM, para 1.6.
CCM, para 2.5.
CCM, para 3.1. See also paras. 1.9, LlO, 1.30, 1.48,2.3,2.6,2.56,2.76,2.80,2.88,2.118,4.1,
4.16. 122
3.63 It is a straightforward, undeniable fact that the Declaration of Santiago does
nat say that it establishes any international maritime boundaries between the
countries thatfonnulated theDeclaration. The Declaration has, no doubt, been
read and re-read many times during this litigation. Familiarity with texts can
duIl the apprehension of what, precisely, they say - particularly when they are
read in fonn of selected passages. This is true of the Declaration of Santiago,
which can rarely he re-read in full without sorne forgotten aspect striking
the eye. As Chile's case rests upon the interpretation of the Declaration of
Santiago, it may he helpful ta set out here the full text of the Declaration:
"1. Governments have the obligation ta ensure for their peoples
the necessary conditions of subsistence, and ta provide them
with the resources for their economic development.
2. Consequendy, they are responsible for the conservation and
protection of their natural resources and for the regulation of
the development of these resources in order to secure the best
possible advantages for their respective countries.
3. Thus, it is also their dutyo prevent any exploitation of these
resources, beyond thescope oftheir jurisdiction, whichendangers
the {Xistence, integrity and conservation of these resources to
the detriment ofthe peoples who, because of their geographical
situation, possess irreplaceable means of sumistence and vital
economic resources in their seas.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Governments of
Chile, Ecuador andPeru, determined to conserve and safeguard
for their respective peoples the natural resources of the
maritime zones adjacent to their coasts, formulate the following
Declaration:
1) The geological and biological factors which determine the
existence, conservation and development of marine fauna and
flora in the waters along the coasts ofthe countries making the
Declaration are such that the former extension of the territorial
sea and the contiguous zone are inadequate for the purposes 123
of the conservation, development and exploitation of these
resources, ta which the coastal countries are entided.
II)In thelight of these circumstances, the Govemments of Chile,
Ecuador and Peru proclaim as a norm of their international
maritime policy that they each possess exclusive sovereignty
and jurisdiction over the sea along the coasts of their respective
countries ta a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles from
these coasts.
III)The exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over this maritime
zone shaH also encompass {Xclusivesovereignty andjurisdiction
over the seabed and the subsoil thereof.
IV) In the case of island territories, the zone of 200 nautical miles
shaH apply ta the entire coast of the island or group of islands.
If an island or group of islands belonging ta one of the countries
making the declaration is situated less than 200 nautical miles
from the general maritime zone belonging ta another of those
countries, the maritime zone of the island or group of islands
shaH he limited by the parallel at the PJint at which the land
frontier of the States concernedreaches the sea.
V) This declaration shall he without :rxejudice to the necessary
limitations to the exercise of sovereignty and jurisdiction
established under international law to aHow innocent and
inoffensive passage through the area indicated for ships of all
nations.
VI) For the application of the principles contained in this
Declaration, the Govemments ofChile, Ecuador andPeruhereby
announce their intention to sign agreements or conventions which
shall establish general norms to regulate and protect hunting
and fishing within the maritime zone helonging to them, and
to regulate and co-ordinate the {Xploitation and development of
aHother kinds of products or natural resources existing in these
waters which are of common interest."llJ
1952 Declaration of Santiago. PM, Annex 47. 124
Spanish text reads as follows:
"1. Los Gobiemos tienen la obligaci6n de asegurar a sus pueblos
las necesarias condiciones de sulEistencia, y de procuraries los
medios para su desarrollo econ6mico.
2. En consecuencia, es su deber cuidar de la conservaci6n
y protecci6n de sus recursos naturales y reglamentar el
aprovechamiento de ellos a fin de obtener las mejores ventajas
para sus respectivos Plises.
3. Por 10tanto, es tambiénsu deber impedir que una explotaci6n
de clichas bienes, fuera del alcance de su jurisdicci6n, ponga en
peligro la {Xistencia, integridad y conservaci6n de esas riquezas
en perjuicio de los pueblos que, por su posici6n geografica,
poseen en sus mares fuentes insustituibles de subsistencia y de
recursos econ6micos que les son vitales.
Por las consideraciones expuestas, los Gobiemos de Chile,
Ecuador y Peru, decididos a conservar y asegurar p:rra sus
pueblos respectivos, las riquezas naturales de las zonas del mar
que baiia sus costas, fonnulan la siguiente declaraci6n:
1) Los factores geol6gicos y biol6gicos que condicionan la
existencia, conservaci6n y desarrollo de la fauna y flora
maritimas en las aguas que baiian las costas de los paises
declarantes, hacen que la antigua extensi6n del mar territorial
y de la zona contigua sean insuficientes para la conservaci6n,
desarrollo y aprovechamiento de esas riquezas, a que tienen
derecho los paises costeros.
II) Como consecuencia de estos hechos, los Gobiernos de
Chile, Ecuador y Peru proclaman coma nonna de su politica
intemacional maritima, la soberania y jurisdicci6n exclusivas
que a cada UllOde ellos corresponde sobre el mar que OOiialas
costas de sus respectivos paises, hasta Ulladistancia minima de
200 millas marinas desde las referidas costas.
III)La jurisdicci6n y soberania exclusivas sobre la zona maritima
indicada incluye tambiénla soberania y jurisdicci6n exclusivas
solJre el suelo y SUŒUelO que a ella corresponde. 125
IV) En el casa de territorio insular, la zona de 200 millas
marinas se aplicara en tom el contorno de la isla 0 grupo de
islas. Si una isla0 grupo de islas pertenecientes a Ulla de los
Plises declarantes estuviere a menas de 200 millas marinas de
la zona maritima general que corresponde a otro de ellas, la
zona maritima de esta isla 0 grupo de islas quedarâ limitada por
el p:rraleldeI punta en que llega al mar la frontera terrestre de
los estados respectivos.
V) La presente Declaraci6n no significa desconocimiento
de las necesarias limitaciones al ejercicio de la soŒrania y
jurisdicci6n establecidas PJf el derecho intemacional, en favor
del paso inocente e inofensivo, a travésde la zona seiialada, para
las naves de todas las naciones.
VI) Los Gobiemos de Chile, Ecuador y Peru expresan su
prop6sito de suscribir acuerdos 0convenciones paralaaplicaci6n
de los principios indicados en esta Declaraci6n en los cuales
se estableceran normas generales destinadas a reglamentar
y proteger la caza y la pesca dentro de la zona maritima que
les corresponde, y a regular y coordinar la explotaci6n y
aprovechamiento de cualquier otro género de proouctos 0
riquezas naturales existentes en dichas aguas y que sean de
interéscomlÎn."
3.64 The Declaration states that Chile, Ecuador and Peru "each possess exclusive
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea along the coasts of their respective
countries to a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles from these coasts."ll4
Neither that claim, nor any other provision in the Declaration of Santiago,
stipulates how the maritime zones are delimited from each other.
1952 Declaration of Santiago, point II. PM, Annex 47. 126
2. Points II and IV afthe Declaration afSantiago
3.65 The only language in the Declaration of Santiago that has any bearing upon
the extent of the 200-mile maritime zones of the States concemed is ta he
found at points II and IV of the Declaration. No ather part of the Declaration
has any bearing whatever upon the extent (and it is important ta bear in mind
the distinction between the definition of the exient of a maritime zone and the
delimitation of a maritime zone- the former being a distance; the latter, a line)
of maritime zones generated by the mainland coasts of the States concemed.
3.66 Point II reads as follows:
"... the Governments of Chile, Ecuacbr and Peru proclaim as
a norm of their international maritime poliey that they each
possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea along
the coasts of their respective countries ta a minimum distance of
200 nautical miles from these coasts."
3.67 Point II proclaims a policy: it does not purport to create rights or obligations;
and it has nothing to do or say in respect of the maritime boundaries between
the States concemed. Point II cannot provide a basis for Chile's case.
Accordingly, Chile's case must rest entirely upon point IV of the Declaration
of Santiago.
3.68 Chile repeatedly mis-states the effect of point IV of the Declaration of
Santiago. Chile seizes upon two phrases in point IV, out of context: "the
parallel at the point at which the land frontier of the States concemed reaches
the sea", and "the general maritime zone belonging to another of those
countries" .
3.69 In point IV the concept of the parallel isnot applied to the general, mainland
generated maritime zone, but to islands. The wording of point IV is clear and
precise. It reads in full as follows: 127
"In the case of island territories, the zone of 200 nautical miles
shaH apply ta the entire coast of the island or group of islands.
If an island or group of islands belonging ta one ofthe countries
making the declaration issituated less than 200 nautical miles
from the general maritime zone belonging ta another of those
countries, the maritime zone of the island or group of islands
shaH he limited by the parallel at the PJint at which the land
frontier of the States concernedreaches the sea."
3.70 Chile repeatedly conflates the two phrases, sa as ta suggest that point IV
provides that the boundary of 'the general maritime zone of the parties' is
"the parallel at the point at which the land frontier of the States concemed
reaches the sea." For example, it does sa in paragraphs 1.6, 1.10, 1.30, 1.64,
2.3,2.6,2.69,2.76,2.79,2.91,2.93,2.118,2.223,2.263, 3.40, 3.41, 4.14, 5.3
and 5.4 of its Counter-Memorial. That is nat the case.
3.71 The meaning of point IV is plain and unambiguous. It limits the maritime
zones of islands; but it does not purport to delimit the zones between States in
any other circumstances. Nor does point IV say anything about the maritime
zones generated by the mainland, except in relation to the overlap between
"mainland" maritime zones and "island" maritime zones. It says nothing
whatever about the boundaries between the maritime zones of adjacent States
generated by the mainland coasts.
3.72 Point IV limits the maritime zones generated by islands by saying how
far "island" zones may extend. It indicates that (a) in principle islands
are entitled to 200-nautical-mile maritime zones, (h) which extend from
the entire coastline around the island (and not, for example, only on the
coast facing towards or away from the mainland), but that (c) in certain
circumstances islands will not be entitled to afu11200miles of maritime zone.
Specifically, and as a pragmatic and simple solution, the maritime zones
which they generate may be curtailed by lines of latitude in circumstances 128
where they overlap with the "general maritime zone" of another country that
participated in fonnulating the declaration.
3.73 Point IV makes sense in the context of point II of the Declaration of Santiago.
Point II affinned the more general and fundamental question that it was
the poliey of the three States ta daim maritime zones out ta a "minimum
distance" of 200 nautical miles. The natural, and correct, assumption is that
this affirmation applied primarily ta the maritime zones generated by the
mainland coasts.
3.74 Point II says nothing about international maritime boundaries or parallels of
latitude. An ordinary reading of point II would therefore indicate (a) that the
maritime reach of the mainland coasts would radiate in all directions for 200
nautical miles as an "arcs of circles" entitlement, (h) that each country had
its own distinct radial maritime entitlement, (c) that those entitlements would
inevitably overlap, and (d) that future maritime daims could extend heyond
200 nautical miles and increase the areas of overlap.
3.75 As was noted in Peru's Memorial w ,the initial proposal for language on the
maritime zones of islands camefrom Chile, which suggested that the 200-mile
zone would he applied to the entire coast of the island or group of islands,
except that:
"If an island or group of islands belonging to one of the
countries making the declaration is situated less than 200
nautical miles from the general maritime zone helonging
to another of those countries, according to what has been
established in the first paragraph of this article, the maritime
PM, footnote194at para.4.76. 129
zone of the said island or group of islands shaH he limited, in
the corresponding part, ta the distance that separates it from
the maritime zone of the other State or country"ll6.
3.76 That proposal, for inclusion in the text of what was then draft point 3, could
have been interpreted in a manner adverse ta Ecuador's interests. In the north,
the maritime zone generated by Peru's mainland would overlap with the
maritime zones generated by Ecuador's coastal islands: indeed, the Peruvian
zone could in principle overlap and could reach right across the mouth of the
bay at the back of which is situated Ecuador's largest port and most populous
city, Guayaquil.
3.77 The Chilean draft might have been thought ta imply that Peru's "mainland-
generated" zone would have its full extent and that the zones measured from
Ecuador's islands would extend only ta the distance that separated those
islands from Peru's mainland maritime zone. The Chilean draft would not
permit any "interference" by islands with the maritime zones generated by the
mainland.
3.78 It was in that context that the Ecuadorean representative, Jorge Femandez S.,
made his proposal.
"...:Mr.Femandez observed that it would be advisable to clarify
more article 3, in order to prevent any misinterpretation of the
interference zone in the case of islands, and suggested that the
declaration be drawn on the basis that the l:xmndary line of the
jurisdictional zone of each country be the respective p:rrallel
from the point at which the borders of the countries touches or
reaches the sea."1l7
226 Act of the First Session of the Juridical Affairs Commission of the First Conference on the
Exploitation and Conservation ofthe Marine Resources ofthe South Pacific of 11August 1952.
PM, Annex 56.
Ibid. 130
3.79 After debate, the final drafting of the Declaration of Santiago was entrusted ta
Dr. Alberto Ulloa, Peruvian delegate, and ta :Mt- .avid Cruz Ocampo, Chilean
delegate, who addressed the issue of the islands' 'zone of interference' raised
by the Ecuadorean delegate.
3.80 Thus, the final text of point IV read as follows:
"In the case of island territories, the zone of 200 nautical miles
shall apply ta the entire coast of the island or group of islands.
If an island or group of islands belonging ta one of the countries
making the declaration is situated less than 200 nautical miles
from the general maritime zone belonging ta another of those
countries, the maritime zone of the island or group of islands
shallCe limited by the p:rrallel at the point at which the land
frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea.''l18
Spanish text reads as follows:
"En el casa de territorio insular, la zona de 200 millas marinas se
aplicarâ en tocb el contomo de la isla0grupo de islas. Si una isla
o grupo de islas pertenecientes a uno de los Plises declarantes
estuviere a menos de 200 millas marinas de la zona maritima
general que corresponde a otro de ellos, la zona maritima de
esta isla0 grupo de islas quedarâ limitada por el p:rralelo deI
punto en que llega al mar la frontera terrestre de los estados
respectivos."
3.81 It has long been understood that point IV of the Declaration of Santiago
addressed the question of the maritime zones of Ecuador's coastal islands. In
that sense,Peru has consistently sustained that there are no boundary problems
with Ecuador. The Letter of 9 June 2010, addressed by Peruvian President,
Alan Garcia, to Ecuadorean President, Rafael Correa, is the latest Peruvian
statement in this regard, which reads as follows:
1952 Declaration of Santiago, point IV. PM, Annex 47. 131
"Given that, in accordance with the provision stated by Article
63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, Ecuador
has been notified by the Court as a Party ta the instruments
that have heen mentioned with different scopes in the pending
proceedings concerning the maritime dispute lJetween Peru
and Chile, 1hereby send yOll this letter in arder ta infürmyOll
about the position of the State of Peru al:xmtthe effects of those
instruments in connection with our two countries.
In that sense, Peru asserts that the international instruments
in question shaH he interpreted in gocxl faith, in accordance
with their content and respecting their abject and purpose.
Accordingly, by virtue of what is expressly stated in the text,
the second p1It of article IV of the Declaration on the :Maritime
Zone, adopted in Santiago on 18 August 1952, acklresses a
situation only applicable ta the case of Peru and Ecuacbr. Such
a situation responds ta a specifie circumstance, derivedfrom the
presence of islands under the sovereignty of a signatory State,
whose maritime projection to a distance of two-hundrednautical
miles is limitedby the p:rrallel of latitude. Hence, the p1rallel of
latitude from the point at which the land ooundary reaches the
sea, at Boca de Capones (03°23'33.96"SL), is only applicable to
Peru and Ecuador.
The fonnulation set forth in the aoove-mentioned p:rragraphs
confirms the official p;Jsition of the State of Peru on this
matter, in the sense that there are no ooundary problems with
Ecuador. For this reason, the proceedings instituted by Peru
before the International Court of Justice solely refers to the
maritime ooundary between Peru and Chile, where there are
characteristics and circumstances different from those existing
between our two countries.
1 sincerely wish that you interpret this letter as another sign
of the spirit of fratemal and transparent dialogue, within the
framework of the deep integration that we have been promoting
as representatives of our peoples and that is proved by the high
level attained in our bilateral relations."110
LeUer of9 June 2010 from His Excellency Alan Garcia, President ofthe Republic of Pern to His
Excellency Rafael CorreaDelgado, President of the Republic ofEcuador. PR, Annex 81. 132
Spanish text reads as follows:
"Como quiera que, conforme alo dispuesto por el articula 63 del
Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia, Ecuador ha sida
notificado por el Tribunal en razon a su condici6n de parte en
instrumentas que han sida mencionacbs con distintos alcances
en el proceso relativo a la controversia maritima entre el Peru
y Chile que esta actualmente en curso, me permito dirigirle la
presente para poner en su conocimiento la posici6n del Estaoo
pernano sobre los efectos de clichas instrumentas en relaci6n a
nuestros dos Plises.
En ese senticb, el Peru sostiene que los instrumentas
intemacionales en cuesti6n deben ser interpretaoos de buena fe,
atendiendo a su contenido y respetando el objeto y fin de los
illlSillOS.
Consiguientemente, a mérita de 10 que expresamente seiiala el
texto, la segunda p1Ite del articula IV de la Declaraci6n sobre
Zona :Maritima, adoptada en Santiago el 18 de agosto de 1952,
aoorda un supuesto linicamente aplicable al casa deI Peru y deI
Ecuador. Tal supuesto responde a una circunstancia concreta,
derivada de la p.-esencia de islas bajo soberania de un Estado
signatario cuya proyecci6nmaritima a una distancia de doscientas
millas marinas esta limitada por el paralelo geografico. Por
ello, el paralelo geogrâfico a partir deI punto en que la frontera
terrestre llega al mar, en Boca de Capones (03°23'33.96"LS),
s6lo es aplicable al Peru y Ecuacbr.
El planteamiento de los parrafos anteriores confirma la postura
oficial del Estaoo pernano en la materia, en el sentido de que
no {Xisten problemas de limites con Ecuador. Por tal motivo,
el proceso incoado por el Peru ante la Corte Internacional de
lusticia se refiere {Xclusivamente al limite maritimo entre Peru
y Chile, donde se presentan caracteristicas y circunstancias
distintas a las que existen entre nuestros dosPlises.
Deseo vivamente que Usted interprete esta carta coma una
muestramas del espiritu de di81ogofraterno y transp:rrente, en el
marco de la integraci6n profunda que hemos venido impulsando 133
como representantes de nuestros pueblos y que se refleja en el
alto nivel alcanzado en la relaci6n bilateral."
But there isnat, and has never been, any such understanding with Chile.
3.82 There are no islands that could affect a Peru-Chile boundary in the way that
the islands in the north could affect the Peru-Ecuador boundary. That is a
simple geographical facto Point IV of the Declaration of Santiago deals with
islands, and it has no application ta the waters adjacent ta the land boundary
between Peru and Chile.
3. Point IV afthe Declaration afSantiago Is Not Based Upon a Presumed Use
afthe ParaUe!as the Mainland Boundary
3.83 Point IV of the Declaration of Santiago did nat establish an international
maritime boundary between Chile and Peru, and Chile's attempt ta argue
that it does cannat succeed. Chile has therefore turned ta a second level of
argument: that point IVpresupposes the existence of an international maritime
boundary.
3.84 Thus, in its Counter-Memorial, Chile states that "the use of parallels oflatitude
to limit the zone of an 'island or group of islands' presupposes, and may he
explained only on the basis, that the general maritime zones are also delimited
by the same parallels of latitude."l:xJ This is plainly incorrect.
3.85 There are two obvious answers to this argument. Thefirst is that the suggestion
is absurdo If, as Chile's argument asserts, the parallels were established as
international maritime boundaries hefore 1952, there would have heen no
230 CCM, para 2.82 (emphasis added). 134
need for point IV. The "presupposed boundaries" would themselves have
settled the question of the maritime entitlement of islands.
3.86 The secondanswer is that, as was shawn above, there is no evidence whatever
that an international maritime boundary between Chile and Peru had been
established in 1947 or between 1947 and 1952; and it is nat credible that an
international maritime boundary could have been established without anyone
J1
noting the factl •
3.87 A point might be "presumed" or "assumed" if it is sa well-known and sa
clearly established as nat ta need ta he said. In such a case there will he a
wealth of evidence in support of the point. Here one would expect at least
government statements, written or oral, or official reports or maps referring
ta the establishment of an international maritime boundary between Peru and
Chile. But there isnothing.
3.88 In the absence of any actual evidence of a pre-existent boundary, Chile's
explanation is that the evidence for the "presupposition" lies in sorne sense in
a necessary implication of the Declaration of Santiago. But even this argument
is fallacious.
3.89 In its Counter-Memorial lJl Chile sets out the three diagrams reproduced
in Figure R-3.1 of this Reply. The labels "Centre Diagram", "Right-side
Diagram" and "Left-side Diagram" refer to the originallayout in the Counter
Memorial - the diagrams are reordered in this Reply to match the order in
which they are discussed.
m See Sections A., B., and C. ofthis chapter above.
CCM, para. 2.82. 135
M _
dlagra m
Rlgh<Id
dlag ram
Left·slde
dlagram
MARITIME BOUNDARY SCENARIO
A
B
Figure R-3.1 137
3.90 Chile argues that the diagrams support its argument that point IV of the
Declaration of Santiago presupposes the existence of an international maritime
boundary between Chile and Peru. The first point ta make is that there are no
islands near the land boundary between Peru and Chile ta which the situation
in these diagrams might he applicable by analogy. The hypothetical situation
is quite different from that in the present case.
3.91 Even if the hypothetical situation did have sorne bearing upon the present
case, a methodical analysis of the graphie shows that it offers no support ta
Chile's assertion that the terms of point IV of the Declaration of Santiago
can only be explained if it is assumed that mainland maritime boundaries
following the parallels of latitude were already in existence.
3.92 Chile begins by noting that the middle diagram (reproduced in this Reply in
Figure R-3.1, at the top of the page) portrays the situation where a parallel of
latitude not oruy limits the islandmaritime zone but also delimits the "general
maritime zones" (i.e., the "mainland" maritime zones). That is correct. Island
A (the tiny green circle lying in the middle of the orange circle that represents
the island's 200-nautical-mile zone) is portrayed with a truncated maritime
zone that would, in such a situation, have resultedfrom the provisions of point
IV of the Declaration of Santiago. That diagram accordingly also depicts a
maritime boundary that follows the parallel from where the land boundary
meets the sea (the presupposed boundary that Chile contends is needed to
understand point IV).
3.93 Chile then says-
"... if the general maritime zones of adjacent States A and B are
delimited in any way other than by a parallelof latitude starting
from the seaward terminus of the land boundary (as illustrated 138
in the boxes on the right and left), there is no reason ta delimit
the insular maritime zone of State A (the area in orange) by
using that p:rrallel oflatitude.''lJJ
That is nat correct.
3.94 As far as the middle diagram itself is concemed, if Chile were correct in
asserting that the parallel was already established and presupposed as an
international maritime boundary, point IV of the Declaration of Santiago
would have been unnecessary, as was pointed out above. The established,
presupposed maritime boundary would have automatically limited the
maritime zones generated by al! coasts, including islands: otherwise, it would
nat he an international maritime boundary. There would have been no need
ta reiterate this point with point IV of the Declaration. With lateral maritime
boundaries in place, all questions that might arise conceming the maritime
reach of islands would have already been setded, and these boundaries
would stand on their own requiring no reinforcement. If it "presupposed"
anything, the fact that it was thought necessary to include point IV in the 1952
Declaration of Santiago surely presupposed that lateral maritime boundaries
had no! already been established.
3.95 The right-hand diagram (reproduced in this Reply in Figure R-3.1, at the
middle of the page) shows a boundary scenario that is completely misleading.
It ispresented by Chile to show how Island A would have been treated under
point IV of the Declaration of Santiago if an international maritime boundary
had followed a directional bearing somewhat south of due West. But since
in this case Island A is positioned completely within the "general maritime
zone" of State A and the international maritime boundary with State B veers
south of the 200-nautical-mile maritime zone surrounding Island A, there is
CCM, para. 2.82. 139
no reason ta have any truncation of the maritime zone of Island A at all. The
island can have its ful1200-nautical-mile zone without encroaching upon the
maritime zone of State B. Under these circumstances the only way in which
Island A could possibly have its maritime zone truncated would be if State A
decided ta truncate its own island, a maye that would defy all1ogic.
3.96 In the left-side diagram in the layant in the Counter-Memorial a lateral
maritime boundary between StateA and State B extends out ta sea and crosses
the maritime zone of Island A. In this situation the protective provision in the
second sentence of point IV of the Declaration of Santiago would indeedhave
been triggered. The international maritime boundary delimitation would have
followed the agreed SE-NW course from the terminus of the land boundary
until it touched the 200-nautical-mile liruit around Island A ta the SE of Island
A. At that point it would change course and follow the parallel of latitude
within until it touched the 200-nautical-mile limit SW of Island A. The effect
is shown more clearly in Figure R-3.1 ("Left-side Diagram", at the bottom of
the page).
3.97 State A would have the light-blue (mainland) and orange (island) zones:
State B would have the clark-blue (mainland) zone. The delimitation line
would describe an irregular course. The maritime area below the parallelline
traversing Island A's 200-nautical-mile zone would be assigned to State B;
but this would have happened even if the international maritime bounclary
had followed the parallel from where the land bounclary between State A and
State B meets the sea.
3.98 What Island A therefore saves in this scenario is the wedge-shaped maritime
space located between (a) the prolongation of the SE-NW boundary projecting
from the terminus of the land boundary and (h) the latitudinalline traversing
Island A's 200 nautical-mile zone in accordance with the second sentence of
point IV of the Declaration of Santiago. Chile is wrong to say that "there isno 140
reason ta delimit the insular maritime zone of State A ...by using that parallel
of latitude."l J4The reason ta liruit the insular maritime zone of State A by
using the parallel of latitude is that it gives State A a larger maritime zone.
3.99 Point IV of the Declaration of Santiago means what it says, and it achieves
what it set out ta achieve. It would have been redundant had there been an
established international maritime boundary along a parallel of latitude. If it
presupposes anything, it presupposes that the international maritime boundary
will nat follow the line of latitude.
E. THE INVITATICNS TO TIIE1952 SANTIAGO CONFERENCE
3.100 Chile's entire case depends upon the proposition that an international maritime
boundary was agreed between Chile and Peru in 1952 in the Declaration of
Santiago. If it cannat establish that there was such an agreement in 1952,
Chile's case fails, as Peru says it must. It is therefore necessary ta understand
what Peru and Chile thought they were doing at the 1952 Santiago Conference
- particularly as the Declaration of Santiago contains no reference to the
establishment of a boundary and Chile's case is that agreement on the
international maritime boundary was necessarily implied in or presumed by
the Declaration.
3.101 As has been noted, it is a matter of simple fact that the 1952 Declaration of
Santiago contains no provision addressing the question of the delimitation
of maritime zones generated by the mainland coasts of neighbouring States.
That was not an oversight, or the result of obscurity in the phrasing of the
Declaration. Neither the Santiago Conference nor the Declaration of Santiago
234 CCM, para. 2.82. 141
was intended ta address the question of the delimitation of maritime zones
generated by the mainland coasts of neighbouring States.
3.102 Chile argues that the purpose of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago was
evidenced by the tenns of the invitations ta the 1952 Santiago Conference
issued by Chile. No provisional agenda for the conference was sent ta Peru; naf
do the Official Minutes of the conference make any reference ta an agenda m .
Chile has, therefore, ta rely upon the tenns of the invitations themselves.
3.103 Chile points out that its invitation ta Ecuador ta attend the 1952 Conference
referred ta "the detennination of the Territorial Sea" (la fijaci6n del Mar
Territorial) as one of the objectives of the conference"-J:l.The suggestion
appears ta he that Ecuador was invited ta a conference which it knew would
address questions of delimitation. The invitation in these tenns was addressed
to Ecuador, not to Peru, and cannot now he prayed in aid by Chile. Indeed,
it was not until it received the Counter-Memorial that Peru discovered that
Chile had made different representations to Peru and to Ecuador as to the
purpose of the 1952 Santiago Conference - a discovery that Peru views with
sorne dismay and concem.
3.104 ln any event, the suggestion that the invitation (i.e., the invitation to Ecuador)
made clear to Peru that maritime boundaries would he negotiated at the 1952
Santiago Conference is not correct. The Official Letter No. 04938 of 27 June
1952, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the ChileanAmbassador
in Ecuador, stated the tenns in which the Ecuadorean Government would he
invited to the conference in the following terms:
The Official Letter No. (M): 5-4/166 of 11 July 1952, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Peru to the Amhassador of Pern to Chile noted that "The Govemment ofChile has not set the
date for this meeting, nor has it proposed yet itsItwould he convenient, in order to study
it." PR, Annex 3.
CCM, paras. 2.53-2.54. 142
"The Government of Chile, convinced of the necessity of
protecting its industry and the {Xistence of whales in our
maritime zones, considers that the time has come ta caU a
conference in which Ecuador, Peru and Chile would take part,
in order ta study the measures deemed necessary ta modify the
prohibitions that tbreaten the economy of the aforementioned
countries, while at the same time maintaining in force the
regulations concerning the protection of whales in order ta avoid
their decrease or {Xtinctionin this part of the Continent.
The participation of Ecuacbr in this conference is of great
importance given the significant quantity of sperm whales
existing in its maritime zone, p:rrticularly in the zone of the
GalâPlgos Islands, and [because] the attached provisional
agenda states that the determination of the Territorial Sea is set
as one of the objectives of the meeting."lJ7
These terms were reflected in the Chilean invitation Note ta Ecuador, dated
238
7 July 1952 •
3.105 The first thing to note about the invitation to Ecuador is the focus on the
importance of whale stocks. The invitation gives no hint that delimitation
of maritime boundaries was to be discussed. Indeed, it would have been
remarkable if Chile had invited Ecuador to a conference to discuss Ecuador' s
maritime boundary with Peru, particularly as it was not until twelve days after
the invitation to Ecuador that Chile invited Peru to the conference. What the
reference to the "determination of the Territorial Sea" does point to is the
importance of detennining the extent of the maritime zone. That is, of course,
precisely what the Declaration of Santiago did.
CCM, Annex 111.
Note No. 468/51 of7 July 1952, from the Ambassador ofChile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
ofEcuador. The provision al agenda is set out in this Note to Ecuador and explains what is meant
by "determination of the Territorial Sea" (fijGci6n de! mar territorial). The intention appears
to have been to indicate the need to give force and stability to the 200-mile Itdoes not
indicate an intention to address questions of delimitation. See Annex 59. 143
3.106 The terms of Chile's invitation ta Peru are more pertinent in the present case.
That invitation, dated sorne two weeks later, 10 July 1952, read, in full, as
follows:
"y our Excellency,
On behalf of my Government, 1 have the honour ta invite
Your Excellency's Government ta attend the celebration of
a Conference oriented ta conclude agreements regarding the
problems caused by whaling in the waters of the South Pacifie
and the industrialization of whale products.
The Governments ofPeru, Ecuador and Chile will participate
in it.
Everything seems ta point out the need for our countries ta study
the measures that should he acbpted in defenee of their fishing
industry in the face of the well-founded daims by businessmen
of the tbree countries as weil as the restrictive dispositions of the
1946 Washington Convention [SC.,on Whaling], modified later
in the Congresses of London, Oslo and Cape City.
The Conference could hecelebrated between4 and 9 August and
it would eonvene that the tbree partieipating eountries include
in their delegations a member versed in International Law,
given the repereussion that its agreements would very probably
have on the matters of that order that have already originated
declarations by the Presidents of Peru and Chile.
1 avail myself of this opportunity to reiterate to Your
Exeellency the securities of my highest and most distinguished
eonsideration.''ll>l
3.107 It will be observed (a) that the foeus is on whaling,(h) that there is no mention
of "the detennination of the Territorial Sea", (c) that there is no mention of the
239 Note No. 86 of 10 July 1952, from the Embassy ofChile to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Peru. PM, Annex 64. 144
negotiation of international maritime boundaries, (d) that there is no mention
of negotiation of anything else, but rather of the need ta "study" the measures
that should he adopted in defence of the fishing industry, and (e) that the only
particular expertise referred ta was that of an intemationallawyer and that no
mention is made of cartographers or hydrographers. Those are nat the tenns
of an invitation ta seule definitive international maritime boundaries for all
present and future maritime zones.
3.108 The purpose of the 1952 Santiago Conference was the reaffinnation and co
ordination of the 200-mile maritime daims as against third States, notably
in the light of the objections of the United Kingdom 140and United States 141
ta seaward expansions of maritime spaces. The purpose was nat ta raise and
seule lateral international maritime boundary issues between Chile, Peru and
Ecuador.
3.109 Finally, it should heremarked that Chile's suggestion in its Counter-Memorial
that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago was in sorne sense a "legalization" of
the situation brought about by the unilateral claims made by Chile andPeru in
242
1947 is puzzling. The 1947 claims - the Chilean "Proclamation" of 23 June
243 244
1947 and thePeruvian Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1August 1947 - were
unilateral measures adopted by Chile and by Peru respectively. Whatever
domestic legal status they had in Chilean or Peruvian law was detennined by
those legal systems. Their validity in intemationallaw was, as is well-known,
controversial at that time (and, indeed, admitted by the States concemed) w .
240 Note No. 11 (152/8/48) of 6 February 1948, from the Ambassador ofthe United Kingdom to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeIU. PM, Annex 61.
'" Note No. 1030 of2 July 1948, from the chargé d'affaires ai. ofthe United States to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs ofPeIU. PM, Annex 62.
CCM, para. 1.7.
Presidential Declaration Concerning Continental Shelf of23 June 1947. PM, Annex 27.
Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947. PM, Annex 6.
See, e.g., the statement made by the Chilean Foreign Minister in 1954, quoted in CCM at para.
2.182. 145
But no agreement between Chile, Peru and Ecuador could give greater legal
validity under intemationallaw ta those daims than the daims already had,
although the 1952 Declaration of Santiago couldincrease their political weight
by signalling the solidarity of the tbree States on the 200-mile question. But
that can scarcely he what Chile means by "legalization".
3.110 It is paradoxical (at best) for Chile ta daim that the unilateral measures of
1947 could in sorne way be "legalized" by an instrument which represented
itself as a statement in the farm of a poliey declaration, and which was
moreover nat subject ta ratification or other formal procedures for the
adoption of legal instruments, or even registered with the United Nations 146
until many years later- 47•
3.111 What Chile understands by the term "legalized", and how Chile thinks that
the 1952 Declaration of Santiago "legalized" the 1947 claims, is unclear.
But in any event the question is irrelevant. Whatever effect the Declaration
of Santiago may have had on the legal status of the 1947 claims it cannot
affect the fact that neither the Chilean declaration nor the Peruvian Supreme
Decree No. 781, nor the Declaration of Santiago itself, made any reference
to the lateral boundaries of the 200-mile zone or to boundaries with
neighbouring States.
An act that has no dispositive significance in relation to the status ofthe instrument. The United
Nations registered in its 'Treaty Series' the unilateral declaration President Nasser on
the conditionsunder which the Suez Canal was open to international ohipping. That declaration
cannot possibly be atreaty' as amatter oflaw.
These points are developed in paras. 3.166-3.168 below. 146
F. THE STATED PuRPOSFS OF TIIE 1952 DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
3.112 The purpose of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago was set out explicitly in its
introductory sentences, which read (in full) as follows:
"1. Governments have the obligation ta ensure for their peoples the
necessary conditions of subsistence, and ta provide them with
the resources for their economic development.
2. Consequently, they are responsible for the conservation and
protection of their natural resources and for the regulation of
the development of these resources in arder ta secure the best
possible advantages for their respective countries.
3. Thus, it is also their duty ta prevent any exploitation of these
resources, beyond thescope oftheir jurisdiction, whichendangers
the {Xistence, integrity and conservation of these resources ta
the detriment of the peoples who, because of their geographical
situation, possess irreplaceable means of sumistence and vital
economic resources in their seas.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the Governments of
Chile, Ecuador andPeru, determined to conserve and safeguard
for their respective peoples the natural resources of the
maritime zones adjacent to their coasts, formulate the following
Declaration:''l48
Spanish text reads as follows:
"1. Los Gobiemos tienen la obligaci6n de asegurar a sus pueblos
las necesarias condiciones de sulEistencia, y de procurarles los
medios para su desarrollo econ6mico.
2. En consecuencia, es su deber cuidar de la conservaci6n
y protecci6n de sus recursos naturales y reglamentar el
1952 Declaration of Santiago. PM, Annex 47. 147
aprovechamiento de ellos a fin de obtener las mejores ventajas
p:rra sus respectivos paises.
3.Por 10tanto, es tambiénsu deber impedir que una explotaci6n
de clichas bienes, fuera deI alcance de su jurisdicci6n, ponga en
peligro la existencia, integridad y conservaci6n de esas riquezas
en perjuicio de los pueblos que, por su posici6n geografica,
poseen en sus mares fuentes insustituibles de subsistencia y de
recursos econ6micos que les son vitales.
Por las consideraciones {Xpuestas, los Gobiernos de Chile,
Ecuador y Peru, decididos a conservar y asegurar para sus
pueblos respectivos, las riquezas naturales de las zonas deI mar
que OOiiasus costas, formulan la siguiente declaraci6n:"
3.113 Nothing in these introductory sentences, whichleadinto the actual declaration,
indicates any interest in settling maritime boundaries. Nothing in the opening
speeches at the conference indicates any such interest. Nor does anything in
the closing speeches at the conference. What is indicated is the intention to
extend the jurisdiction of the three States over the exploitation of the natural
resources of the maritime zones adjacent to their coasts. The concem was
with extending the jurisdiction of the three States vis-à-vis third States, not
with delimiting jurisdiction between the three States. The concern was with
the seawardlimit, not with lateral boundaries.
3.114 That is not surprising. While the pressure on whaling from distant-water
whaling fleets faced Chile, Peru and Ecuador with a serious problem, if that
pressure could be removed there were adequate resources within the newly
declared zone to supply the whaling fleets of the three States. Similarly, in the
early 1950s coastal fish stocks were healthy and fish were plentiful.
3.115 The "conservation" need, therefore, was to protect theresources relied upon by
South American fishing industries from depredation by distant-water whaling
and fishing fleets. The obvious mechanism was that adopted by the United 148
States in the two Truman Proclamations of 28 September 1945, conceming
natural resources of the continental shelf andfisheries on high seas 140•Indeed,
the effect of those Proclamations in displacing foreign fishermen from the
United States west-coast waters andinducing them ta maye their fishing effort
southwards, was a major factor leading ta the formulation of the Declaration
of Santiago 1:50.
3.116 This explains the precise language of the Declaration of Santiago, which has
been set out in paragraph 3.63 above. The Declaration is entitled "Declaration
on The Maritime Zone" (Declaraci6n sobre Zona A1aritima) in the singular:
the title refers ta a maritime zone, nat ta maritime zones in the plural. This,
tao, points towards the fact that the objective of the States was ta create an
area for the conservation, protection and exploitation of resources (and in
particular, whales) vis-à-vis third States, and not to delimit three separate
maritime zones between them. This is confinned by the statement of :MI.
Crist6bal Rosas Figueroa, who participated in the 1952 Conferencé'-~l.
3.117 Similarly, Tobias Barras, apraminentChilean politicalfigurewho was Minister
of Defence and one of the promoters of the 1952 Conference, highlighted, in
his Memoir as Secretary-General of the Permanent Commission for the South
Pacific in 1966, that the tripartite instruments exclusively responded to the
m
need of pratecting the whaling resources . This explains the presence of
Proclamation 2667, Policy of the United States with Respect to the Natural Resources of the
Subsoil and SeaBed ofthe Continental Shelf, 28 September 1945, and Proclamation 2668, Policy
of the United States with Respect to Coastal Fisheries in Certain Areas ofthe High Seas, ofthe
same date.PM, Annex 88.
See PM, paras. 4.34-4.35.
StatementofMr. Crist6bal Rosas.Appendix A to this Reply.
"The General Secretariat ascribes this issue a significance that does not require any explanation.
Suffice itto recall that the tripartite Agreements that gather us - and that have somehow
contributed to the creation of a new law, and to the destruction of old-fashioned concepts and
principlesarase almast exclusively jram the need ta preserve our whaling wealth. We were 149
representatives of the whaling industry in the 1952 Conference and the joint
action of the tbree South Pacifie countries ta protect such resources m .
3.118 There is no indication whatever in the Declaration of Santiago that it amounted
ta, or was intended ta amount ta, an agreement on international maritime
boundaries between the tbree States or between any two of them.
G. SUBSEQUENT REPRESENTATIONS OF TIIE PuRPOSFS
OF TIIE1952 DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
3.119 Had the 1952 Declaration of Santiago established an international maritime
boundary between Peru and Chile there would surely have been reference
ta it in the years that followed. But there was nat. The Declaration was
close witnesses ofthefarsightedintervention that the representatives of the whaling industry in
our countries had, together with diplomats and technicians, at the genesis ofthose Agreements.
Itwill always be appropriate to recall that the cause - old, albeit not dated - that gave rise to the
fair daim by the South Pacific coastal States over the marine resources concerned the lack of
results obtained from the international agreements and organizations in control and direction of
the pelagic whaling in our seas.
Practically speaking, pelagic whaling fleets conducted their activities in this zone ofthe South
East Pacific at their convenience; driving the three countries to take on the joint and necessary
defenseofthe conservation and exploitation ofthat wealth." Barros Ortiz, Tobias: "Memoria dei
SecretarioGeneral". In: Comision Permanente de! Pacifico Sur, Documentosde la IXa. Reunion
Ordinaria, Paracas, Ica, Peril, 10-14 de enero de 1966, [S.i.: s.n.], p. 10 (emphasis added).
Precisely, in October 1952, Chilean General Tobias Barros and arepresentative from the Chilean
whaling industry, Fernando Guarello, travelled touador to express to the new President José
Maria Velasco Ibarra the importance for the three countries of the South Pacific to undertake
actions to defend the resources in theea adjacent to their coasts from predatory actions by
foreign fleets, which motivated the August Conference in Santiago.President Velasco Ibarra
expressed his coincidence with the suggestions proposed by the Chilean mission, pointing out
thatthe very serious problem of conservation of the marine resources of the South American
Republics was the only issue discussed with such representatives. See Official LeUer No. 5-
12-Y/269 of 13 October 1952, from the chargé d'affaires a.i. of Pern to Ecuador to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Pern. PR, Annex 4, and the Official LetterNo5-12-A/152 of 17 October
ofPeru to Ecuadorto the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru.
1952, from the chargéd'affaires a.i.
PR, Annex 5. See also PR, Annexes 82 and 83. 150
consistently described in terms of the bold but limited aims described
above.
3.120 The Declaration of Santiago was submitted for approval ta the Chilean
Congress, along with the ather instruments conceming the South Pacifie alsa
signed in 1952, by means of a Presidential Message dated 26 July 1954 2:54.
In that message, no mention was made ta the fact that the Declaration had
established any laterallimits ta Chile' s 200-mile zone or that an international
maritime boundary with Peru had been agreed. It is inconceivable that such
an important development would have gane unmentioned in the Presidential
Message submitting the Declaration ta the Congress if Chile believed at the
time that it had concluded what it now daims ta he "a comprehensive and
complete boundary between the Parties."m
3.121 On 23 September 1954, Chile enacted Supreme Decree No. 432 approving the
Declaration of Santiago. The decree was then published in the Official Gazette
on 22 November 1954 r.:lRemarkably, the version of the decree published in
Chile omitted points IV, V and VI of the Declaration. In other words, the
very provision of the Declaration that Chile now relies on as establishing
an international maritime boundary between the Parties (point IV) was no!
included in the original gazetted version of Supreme Decree No. 432 m .
Once again, it strains credibility that such a serious matter as an international
boundary agreement would have been dealt with in such a cavalier manner
Message from the Chilean Executive to the Congress for the Approval ofthe 1952 Agreements
of26 July 1954. PM, Annex 92.
CCM, para. 1.9.
Supreme Decree No. 432 of 23 September 1954, Approval ofthe Declarations and Conventions
between Chile,ern andEcuador agreed atthe First Conference on Exploitation and Conservation
ofthe Marine Resources ofthe South Pacific. PM, Annex 30.
Equally, when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile published its 1952 Memoir, it did not
include the full texthe Declaration of Santiago, i.e., the reference to the parallel in point IV
was omitted. PR, Annex 19. 151
if the delimitation of the international maritime boundary between Peru and
Chile had been one of the purposes of the Declaration of Santiago.
3.122 It is true that, the following year, Chile's Foreign Ministry wrote a note ta
the Director of the Official Gazette pointing out the omission and asking
that the matter be rectified m .But that note nat only did nat mention that
rectification was important because the omitted articles had established an
international maritime boundary with Peru, it also mistakenly indicated that
the "Declaration on the Maritime Zone" formed part of what was said ta
he an "Agreement on Conservation and Exploitation of Marine Resources
of the South Pacifie". No such Agreement existed. Once again, this
haphazard treatment scarcely supports the proposition that the Declaration
of Santiago had established Chile's international maritime boundary with a
neighbouring State.
3.123 Neither the Declaration of Santiago nor Chile's Supreme Decree No. 432 made
any reference to any map illustrating the course of an international maritime
boundary between Chile and Peru, and no such map was produced by Chile at
the time. This is in sharp contrast with Chile's practice when it subsequently
did conclude a formal international maritime boundary agreement with
Argentina in 1984: the Chile-Argentina Agreement included a map of the
m
delimitation line as an integral part of the agreement . As for the maritime
areas lying off the coasts of Chile and Peru, it was only in the 1990s, sorne 40
years after the signature of the Declaration of Santiago, that Chile started to
issue maps purporting to show an international maritime boundary between
the two countries 1OO•
258 Note No. 2890 of 25 March 1955, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile to the Director
ofthe Chilean Official Gazette. CCM, Annex 115.
See Treaty ofPeace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina, signed on 29 November 1984.
PM, Annex 53 and PM, Figure 5.1, p. 175thereto.
See paras. 4.116-4.124, 4.142 Cg)below. 152
3.124 Equally significant is the fact that Chile referred specifically ta its 1984
international maritime boundary agreement with Argentina in a statement
it made when it notified the United Nations of its ratification of the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea on 25 August 1997. As Chile stated at that
time:
"The Republic of Chile declares that the Treaty of Peace and
Friendship signed with the Argentine Republic on 29 November
1984, which entered into force on 2 :May 1985, shaH define the
boundaries between the respective sovereignties over the sea,
seabed and subsoil of the Argentine Republic and the Republic
of Chile in the sea of the southern zone in the tenns laid clown
in articles 7 t9."261
In contrast, Chile's statementmade no reference ta any international maritime
boundary delimited with Peru, whether under the Declaration of Santiago or
otherwise. These elements reinforce the fact that Chile did nat act as if the
Declaration of Santiago had delimited any international maritime boundary
between the Parties, let alone a "comprehensive and complete" one.
3.125 The same pattern is evident in the practice of Peru. The communication dated
7 February 1955 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru to the Peruvian
Congress on the 1954 Conventions and the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
stated that:
"The declaration on the maritime zone, the basic document of
Santiago, on account of its simply declamtive chamcter, goes no
Declaration made by Chile upon ratification ofthe 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
ofthe Sea of25 August 1997. United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law ofthe Sea,
WW of the Sea Bulletin, No. 35, 1997, p. 9. PR, Annex 72. 153
further than proclaiming 'the extension of their sovereignty and
jurisdiction over the sea'by all three countries as a nonn of their
international maritime policy"161.
3.126 The Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Peruvian Congress
reiterated the point regarding the agreements and treaties signed by Peru,
Chile and Ecuador in Santiago in August 1952 and in Lima in December
1954:
"The most relevant document isthe declaration on the :Maritime
Zone, as the :Ministry of Foreign Affairs states in the Note
attaching the said declaration, since itis a declarative document
and one that establish princip les. This document defines the
international maritime palicy of the three signatory countries
in accordance with its legislative antecedents which are the
grounds of the sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea up
ta a distance of 200 nautical miles from their coasts. This
principle, being solemnly reaffinned by the contracting parties,
is extensive to the insular territory, according to paragraph 4 of
the declaration."163
Official LeUer No. (M)-3-0-A/3 of 7 February 1955, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Peru (emphasis added). (Spanish text: "La declaracion sobre zona maritima, el documento
basico de Santiago, por su caracter simplemente declarativo, no va mas alla de proclamar por
los tres paises como norma de su politica internacional maritima 'la extension de su soberania y
jurisdiccion sobre elar"'.). PM, Annex 95.
Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress of Peru on the Agreements and
Conventions signed byPeru, Chile and Ecuador in Santiago, on 18August 1952; and in Lima, 4
December 1954 (emphasis added). (Spanish text: "El documento mas importante es ladeclaracion
sobre Zona Maritima, como 10expresa la nota de remision de nuestra Cancilleria, por tratarse de
un documento declarativo y principista, que define la politica intemacional maritima de los tres
Paises signatarios, en concordancia con sus antecedentes legislativos que sostiene la soberania y
jurisdiccion sobre elmarhasta la200 millas marinas desde sus costas. Principio, que reafinnado
solemnemente por las partes contratantes, se hace extensivo al territorio insular, seglin el punto
4 dela declaracion."). PMAnnex 96. See also PR,Annex 6. 154
3.127 There is no mention of the establishment of a boundary. It is nat credible
that a Government could have concluded an international boundary with a
neighbouring State - two boundaries, on Chile's view - dividing up tens of
thousands of square kilometres of sea of crucial importance ta the economic
well-being of the State, without communicating the fact ta its Congress, and
without its Congress being aware of the facto
3.128 There is, moreover, no suggestion that any Peruvian writers thought that an
international maritime boundary might have been created by the Declaration
of Santiago.
3.129 Furthennore, in response ta the Notes sent by Denmark, the United States,
the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden reserving their
1M
positions in relation ta the Declaration of Santiago , Chile, Ecuador andPeru
agreed ta present a joint response and ta maintain a cornillon and supportive
front on the issuem . The text of the response, which was approved by the
three Governments, spelled out the nature and purposes of the Declaration of
Santiago and made no reference to the fixing of any international maritime
boundary between Peru and Chile"-oo.
3.130 For example, there is no indication in the records of the Second Conference
on Exploitation and Conservation of the :Marine Resources of the South
Pacifie, held in Lima in December 1954, that the representatives believed that
international maritime boundaries had been agreed in 1952 267•
264 PM, para 4.82.
See Note No. (N): 6/17/14 of 12 April 1955, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru to the
Ambassador ofthe United Kingdom. PM, Annex 65; and, Memoria dei Ministro de Relaciones
Exteriores (28 de julio de 1954 - 28 deo de 1955). Lima, Talleres Grâficos P. L. Villanueva,
1955. PM, Annex 98, pp. 24-25.
Ibid., and see also Note No. (M): 6/3/29 of12 April 1955, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Pern to the chargé d'affaires ai. ofthe United States. PM, Annex 66.
See paras. 4.13-4.18 below. 155
3.131 Peru's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. DavidAguilar Comejo, addressing the
conference, said that:
"The declaration of Santiago of 1952 represents the integration
and solidarity of three nations that, overcoming individual
acts, strengthen a common front as a superior stage in their
international lJehaviour, returning ta the old and well-known
Plth of union and mutual aid, in defence of their national
sovereignties and protection of noble and high interests."168
He made no mention of the declaration having established international
maritime boundaries.
3.132 The limited purpose and nature of the Declaration of Santiago was further
affinned in 1956, in the course of a debate in the Sixth Committee of the
United Nations General Assembly on the International Law Commission's
report on the law of the sea.
3.133 The Peruvian representative made a long intervention, which attracted
comments from the representatives of other States. The summary record of
the debate reads:
"27. In 1952, Peru, Chile and Ecuacbr had signed the Santiago
Declaration, proclaiming a common maritime policy Œsed on
the need of guaranteeing to their peoples the necessary means
of sumistence through the conservation of natural resources and
the regulation of their exploitation.
Opening Speech by David Aguilar Comejo, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pern in the Second
Conference on the Exploitation and Conservation ofthe Marine Resources ofthe South Pacific of
1954. (Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional, Tomo XIV, No. 46, 1954, Julio-Diciembre, p.
268). (Spanish text: "La declaraci6n de Santiago de 1952 representa la integraci6n y solidaridad
de tres naciones que alsuperar la acci6n individual robustecen un frente comiin coma etapa
superior de su actuaci6n internacional, retornando al antiguo y conocido camino de la uni6n
y la ayuda mutuas, en defensa de sus soberanias nacionales y en protecci6n de nobles y altos
intereses."). PR, Annex 54. 156
28. The exclusive jurisdiction which the coastal State enjoyed
over the 'maritime zone' mentioned in the Santiago Declaration
did nat entai! a right ta prohibit the reasonable exploitation
of the protected resources by nationals of ather States. The
Governments of Peru, Chile and Ecuador had indeed expressly
stated that they had no intention of prejudicing the legitimate
interests of ather States, as long as the regulations designed ta
safeguard the marine fauna were duly observed. AlI that they
wished ta prevent was indiscriminate and excessive fishing,
as such abuse of the living resources could cause irreparable
damage.'>lOO
3.134 It may be thought that this statement does nat sit altogether comfortably
with the terms of the Declaration of Santiago and its references in point II
ta "exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction". But this is precisely the point.
There was agreement on the need ta protect marine resources adjacent to the
coasts of the signatory States but it is idle to pretend that the Declaration of
Santiago set out sorne kind of developed sub-regional consensus on law of
the sea matters.
3.135 This is clear from the account of the purposes of the States that fonnulated the
Declaration of Santiago, given in the statement made in the Sixth Committee
five days later by the representative of Ecuador. The report of his intervention
reads as follows:
"36. He then referred to the Santiago Declaration covering
maritime zones, signed by the Governments of Chile, Ecuacbr
and Peru on 18 August 1952. The purposes of those three
Governments had been to ensure to their people alivelihood and
Statement by Peruvian Delegate, Mr. Edwin Letts, in the United Nations General Assembly
Sixth Committee of29 November 1956, 486 Meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.486. PR, Annex 56. 157
means of economic development; ta conserve and protect natural
resources; and ta ensure that the exploitation of resources outside
the jurisdiction of the tbree States would nat he detrimental ta
the interest of populations which, because of their geographical
position, found in the sea their means of subsistence and drew
from it irreplaceable economic resources.
37. ...In claiming sovereign right over the maritime zone in
question they remained within the bounds of their own clearly
defined aim of conserving the living resources of the sea and
of benefiting from such resources in a legitimate way. That
maritime zone, thllS,did nat constitute a territorial sea, but was
a creation sui generis which didnot exclude the legitimate rights
and interests of ather States."170
3.136 The Chilean representative spoke later that month:
"33. The countries on the Pacifie coast of South America had
been charged with violating the principle of freeoom of the seas
by taking measures to protect the living resources of the sea,
but that principle was infringed only if the sea was rendered
unusable as a means of communication among peoples. The
existence of the territorial sea was not contrary to the principle
of freeoom of the seas, for all ships had the right of innocent
Plssage. The greater or lesser lJreadth of the territorial sea did
not affect its juridical character. President Truman's Declaration
of 1947 [sic] and the Declaration by Chile, Ecuador andPeru in
1952, bath of which recognized the right of innocent passage
of ships of all States, did not therefore violate the principle of
freedom of the seas."l7l
Statement by Ecuadorian Delegate, Mr. Escudero, in the United Nations GeneralAssembSixth
t1
Committee of 4 December 1956, 489 Meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.489. PR, Annex 57.
Statement by Chilean Delegate, Mr. Melo Lecaros, in the United Nations General Assembly
Sixth Committee of 12 December 1956, 496t1Meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.496. PR, Annex 58. 158
3.137 With the benefit of more than half a century of legal development one can
see the confusion between innocent passage and freedom of the high seas,
and between the territorial sea and zones of limited jurisdiction. What this
underscores is the tentative, uncertain nature of the initiative taken within
the Declaration of Santiago. The tbree States were feeling their way in a
new area of international law. They were focused on the need ta regulate
the exploitation of marine living resources. Their acts were a very long way
indeed from the routine claiming of extendednational maritime zones defined
according ta well-established legal rules, and the tidying-up of matters by
defining precise international maritime boundaries.
3.138 In the words of the Chilean representative:
"36. Theproblem of conservation of theresources of the sea had
now become a pressing one. It was tragic ta see large foreign
fishing fleets exhausting resources necessary for the livelihood
of the coastal populations. It was deplorable that the measures
taken by the coastal States to safeguard those resources should
have been so little understood .... It was to 1Jehoped that the
rules established by Chile, Ecuacbr andPeru would 1Je endorsed
by intemationallaw through the adoption of a formula similar to
that adoptedat MéXico by the Inter-American Council of Jurists,
to the effect thatcoastal States had the right to adopt measures
cf conservation and supervision necessary for the protection
cf the living resources if the sea beyond territorial waters on
condition that such measures did not discriminate against
foreign fishennen. Such a provision fulfilled the requirements
for a true rule of intemationallaw, for it was necessary, it was
usefuland it was realistic.
39. In the Declaration of Santiago of 1952, Chile, Ecuador and
Peru had stated that it was the responsibility of Governments
to prevent any exploitation of the resources of the sea which
could 1Je prejudicial to nations for which the sea constituted an
irreplaceable means of sumistence. The three Governments had 159
declared that, in view of the biological and geological factors
affecting the conservation and development of the marine fauna
and flora in the waters along their coasts, the former breadth of
the territorial sea and of the contiguous zone was inadequate,
and they had therefore proclaimed their sovereignty up ta a
minimum distance of 200 miles from the shore.
40. The sole abject of the Presidential declaration of 1947 and
the agreement with Ecuador and Pern had been to protee! the
marine resources of the South Pacifie. At no time was it the
intention of those Governments ta encroach either on freedom of
navigation or on thelegitimate interests of ather States, IXovided
such ather States respected the regulations designed ta preserve
the marine fauna."l7l
3.139 Perhaps most remarkable is the 1982 article El XXX Aniversario de la
Declaraci6n de Santiago by Joaquin Fonseca Truque"-n, Deputy Secretary
General of Administration of the Permanent Commission for the SouthPacific
- the very body established at the 1952 Santiago Conference. The article gives
an overview of the Declaration of Santiago, and one might expect that atleast
with the benefit of hindsight something as important as the establishment of
international maritime boundaries would have been mentioned, had it been
effected by the Declaration. But here again there is no hint or suggestion
that the Declaration of Santiago had fixed the maritime boundaries of the
participating States.
3.140 That position continues to hold. Since 1981, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, and
Colombia 174 have held high level meetings regarding the Permanent
Commission for the South Pacific. Most of those meetings have been
Statementby Chilean Delegate, Mr. Melo Lecaros, in the United Nations General Assembly Sixth
Committee of 12 December 1956, 496 Meeting, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.496 (emphasis added)PR,
Annex 58.
Fonseca Truque, Joaquin: "El XXX Aniversario de la Declaraci6n de Santiago". (Revista de la
Comision Permanente de! Pacifico Sur en la Actualidad, No. 12, 1982, pp. 47-53).
PM, footnote 15. 160
held at Foreign :Minister level, and one was at Presidentiallevel. In these
meetings they approved Declarations on poliey and objectives for the future
of the Organization. Not one of those Declarations has made any reference
ta maritime boundaries between the member countries of the Permanent
Commission. These declarations have continued ta underline the importance
of the "purposes and principles" established by the Declaration of Santiago in
1952 w .
H. CONCLUSION: THE PERu-CHILE mTERNATICNAL l\.1AR.ITIME BOUNDARY
W AS NOT AGREED IN TIIE 1952 DECLARATICN OF SANTIAGO
3.141 Chile's daim is that the international maritime boundary between Peru and
176
Chile was agreed in the 1952 Declaration of Santiago •That daim cannat he
substantiated; and it is incorrect.
III. The Legal Status of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
3.142 The text of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago and the circumstances of its
adoption have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, where it was
shown that the Declaration did not purport to establish maritime boundaries.
This conclusion is underlined by the legal status of the Declaration, which is
the question addressed in this final section of the chapter.
There are eight such declarations:1."Declaraci6n de Cali" - (Cali, 24 January 1981); 2.
"Declaraci6n de Vina dei Mar" - (Vina dei Mar, 10 February 1984); 3. "Declaraci6n de Quito"
- (Quito, 10 December 1987); 4. "Declaraci6n de Lima" - (Lima, 4 March 1993); 5. "Declaraci6n
de Santafé de Bogota" - (Santafé de Bogota, 4 August 1997); 6. "Declaraci6n de Santiago 2000"
- (Santiago de Chile, 14 August 2000); 7. "Declaraci6n de los Presidentes de los Paises miembros
de la CPPS" (Ciudad de Panama, 18 November 2000); and 8. "Declaraci6n de Santiago 2002"
- (Santiago de Chile, 14 August 2002). Available at: <http://www.cpps-int.org/plandeaccion/
enero%202009/libro%20convenios.pdf> accessed 8 October 2010.
Seepara. 3. above. 161
3.143 This section will show that the Declaration of Santiago was nat, when
fonnulated on 18 August 1952, a legally-binding instrument, a treaty binding
under international law. It was a poliey declaration, albeit an important
and solemn one. Leaving aside the fact that on its face it did nat establish
any international maritime boundary between Peru and Chile, it was nat
an international agreement capable even in principle of establishing such a
boundary. That is clear from its content and its farm, from the language used,
andfrom its treatment by the declaring States.
3.144 In due course, over the years the Declaration of Santiago came ta be treated
by the declaring States as though it were a treaty. But this involved no change
in its substance. Nothing that happened since 18 August 1952 has transfonned
this statement of the international maritime policy of the tbree States into
something else. Subsequent developments, including domestic ratification and
eventual registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations, did not add
to, or in any way alter, the substantive content of what was a purely political
instrument. In particular, nothing that has happened since 18 August 1952
has transformed the Declaration of Santiago into an international maritime
boundary agreement.
3.145 Accordingly, the authorized opinion of Ambassador Juan :Miguel Bllicula
former Secretary-General of the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific
who chaired the Peruvian delegation during sorne sessions of UNCLOS III
- is very illustrative-
"Obviously, the legislative approval did not modify the 'purely
declarative' nature of the documents signed in Santiago de
Chile and, therefore, none of the agreements approved implied
an express definition of territorial sea or the determination of a
l77
lJreadth of 200 miles •
Bâkula, Juan Miguel: El Dominio Maritimo de! Peru. Lima, Fundaci6n M.L. Bustamante de la
Fuente, 1985,p. 96. 162
A. THE DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO,
WREN ORIGINALLY FORMULATED, WAS NOT A TREATY
3.146 The Declaration of Santiago was nat, when fonnulated on 18 August 1952,
a treaty binding under intemationallaw 178•This is clear from its actual text,
from its fonn, from the particular circumstances in which it was drawn up,
and from the manner in which the declaring States dealt with it thereafter.
1. Definition of "Treaty"
3.147 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a treaty as "an
international agreement concluded between States in written fonn and
govemed by internationallaw, whether embodied in a single instrument or in
two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation"17o.
It is accepted that the elements of this provision now represent customary
international law l8• The crucial element in the definition, including for
present purposes, is that the instrument is "an international agreement ...
govemed by intemationallaw". This embraces the element of an intention to
181
create rights and obligations under internationallaw • In deciding whether
an instrument is a treaty, regard must be had "above all to its actual tenns and
See also the discussion inPM, paras. 4.62-4.87. The Memorial states atpara 4.70: "The Declaration
was conceived, as it explicitly stated, not as a treaty but as a proclamation of the international
maritime policy ofthe three States. Its 'declarative' character was clearly recognized."
Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties, Art. 2.1(a).
wnd and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria:
Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, lC.J. Reports 2002, p. 429,para. 263. Aust, Anthony:
Modern Treaty ww and Practice. 2nd ed., Camix"idge,etc., Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 16.
For an account of the work of the International Law Commission and the Vienna Conference on
this point, see Gautier, Philippe: "Article 2".In: Corten, Olivier andPierre Kleinl, Les Conventions
de Vienne sur le Droit des Traités.Commentaire article par article. Vol. 1, Bruxelles, Bruylant,
2006, pp. 60-63; see also Gautier, Phillippe: Essai sur la définition des traités entre Etats. La
pratique de la Belgique aux confins du droit des traités. Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1993, pp. 328-331. 163
ta the particular circumstances in which it was drawn Up"181,nat from what
the States concemed say afterwards was their intention.
3.148 The Court has had occasion ta consider whether an instrument is or is nat a
legally binding treaty in a number of cases.
3.149 In the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case, the Court was called upon ta
decide whether the Brussels Communiqué of 1975 was or was nat a treat y18J.
In holding that it was nat, the Court examined both the text of the Brussels
Communiqué and "whatlight is tbrown on its meaning by the context in which
the meeting of 31 :May 1975 took place and the Communiqué was drawn
Up."l84 The Court held that "it is in that context - a previously expressed
willingness on the part of Turkey jointly ta submit the dispute ta the Court,
after negotiations and by a special agreement defining the matters ta he
decided - that the meaning of the Brussels Joint Communiqué of 31 May
1975 has to he appraised T.he1C8ourt also looked to events subsequent to
the Communiqué (negotiations hetween experts and diplomatie exehanges) to
eonfinn its conclusion that the Communiqué did not include a eommitment to
l86
submit the dispute to the Court •
2. The Actual Terms of the Declaration of Santiago
3.150 The aetual tenns of the Declaration of Santiago demonstrate beyond doubt
that it was not intended to establish legally-binding obligations. It has all the
hallmarks of a statement of poliey. The first three paragraphs set out poliey
282 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, lC.J.Reports 1978, p. 39, para 96; Maritime
Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, Judgment, lC.J. Repor1994, p. 121, para 23.
283 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, lC.J. Repor1978, pp. 38-45, paras. 94-107.
284 Ibid.,p. 41, para. 100.
Ibid.,p. 43, para. 105.
Ibid.,para 106. 164
considerations, in the light of which the three Governments "fonnulate the
following Declaration" (jormulan la siguiente declaraci6n). The declaration
itself consists of six points. Point 1 states that the former extension of the
territorialsea and contiguous zone "are inadequate". In points II and III
the tbree Govemments proclaim "as a nonn of their international maritime
poliey" (como nonna de su politica internacional maritima) that they each
possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction ta a minimum distance of 200
nautical miles, which includes the seabed and subsoil. Point IV deals with
the particular question of island territories, while point V concems "innocent
and inoffensive passage" (paso inocente e inofensivo). The final point, point
VI, in particular, is explicit on the non-binding nature of the points contained
in the Declaration of Santiago, since it looks forward to the conclusion in
the future of "agreements or conventions" (acuerdos 0 convenciones) for the
application of "the principles contained in this Declaration" (los principios
contenidos en esta Declaraci6n). Point VI reads as follows:
"For the application of the principles contained in this
Declaration, the Govemments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru
hereby announce their intention to sign agreements or
conventions which shaH establish general norms to regulate and
protect hunting andfishing within the maritime zone belonging
to them, and to regulate and co-ordinate the exploitation and
development of all other kinds of products or natural resources
existing in these waters which are of common interest."
3.151 Six such agreements were concluded at the 1954 Conference on Exploitation
and Conservation of the Marine Resources of the South Pacific, held at
Lima 187•These included the Complementary Convention to the Declaration
of Sovereignty on the Two-Hundred-Mile Maritime Zone (hereinafter "the
PM, footnote111 apara. 3.31. 165
1954 Complementary Convention") and the Agreement on a Special Zone.
But they did nat include anything in the nature of a maritime delimitation
agreement.
3.152 The clear understanding of theparticipants in the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
that it contained only non-binding principles and looked forward ta the
conclusion of agreements and conventions, was evident on many occasions.
For example, in 2()()()the Foreign :Ministers of Peru, Chile, Colombia and
Ecuador adopted a Declaration, in which they "ratify their adhesion ta
the principles and validity of the purposes that inspired the Declaration of
Santiago of 18 August 1952 and the creation of the Permanent Commission
for the South Pacifie, as well as the Agreements, Conventions and Protocols
adopted by the four countries in view oftuming such princip les and purposes
into con crete commitments applying common policies regarding maritime
matiers, particularly those related to the protection of the resources inside
and outside their jurisdictions."188
3. Form of the Declaration of Santiago
3.153 While the form of an instrument is not in itself conclusive, it may well give
a clear indication as to the intentions of the States concemed. "The law of
treaties is extremely flexible and can accommodate departures from normal
practice", yet "most treaties are drafted according to standard forms and
processed according to long-established procedures."180As the Court has saül,
Santiago, 14August 2000 (emphasis added). (Spanish text: "Ratifican su adhesi6n alos principios
y la vigencia de los prop6sitos que inspiraron la Declaraci6n de Santiago dei 18 de agosto
de 1952 y la creaci6n de la Comisi6n Pennanente dei Pacifico Sur, asi coma a los Acuerdos,
Convenios y Protocolos que los cuatro paises han adoptado para hacer de esos principios y
prop6sitos, comprom isos concretosara la aplicaci6n de politicas cornunes en materia maritima,
particularmente las relativas a la protecci6n de los recursos contenidos dentro y fuera de
sus jurisdicciones.").Available at: <http://www.cpps-int.org/plandeaccion/enero%202009/
libro%20convenios.pdf> accessed 8 October 2010.
Aust, Anthony, op. cit., p. 16. 166
"international agreements may take anumber offonns and hegiven a diversity
of names."lOO.Nevertheless, States do in practice commonly adhere ta certain
fonns when they wish ta conclude an agreement that is legally-binding under
intemationallaw, nat least when they are concluding a boundary treaty. In the
present case, nothing whatsoever in the fonn of the instrument points ta an
intention ta conclude a legally-binding instrument; indeed, everything points
in the opposite direction -
(a) The title of the instrument is "Declaration on the Maritime Zone", nat
"Treaty" or "Agreement" or any of the ather tenns nonnally used for a
legally-binding international agreementl° 1• While the designation of an
instrument is nat conclusive, it may he an indication as ta the intention
of the States concemed 101•
(h) The operative words are "the Governments ... fonnulate the following
Declaration:" (los Gobiernos ... formulan la siguiente declaraci6n:),
nat "Have agreed as fallaws:".
(c) The three Gavernments making theDeclaratian arereferred ta in the text
as "the cauntries making the Declaratian"lOJ, nat as "Parties".
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, Judgment, lC.J. Reports 1994, p. 120, para 23.
Ibid. Of course, occasionally a treaty may be entitled "Declaration", as was the case with the
Maroua Declaration that was at issue in Cameroon v. Nigeria and the China-United Kingdom
Joint Declaration onthe Future of Hong Kong of 1984. But this is not cornmon.
See, in this sense, Gautier, Philippe: "Article 2". In: Corten, Olivier and Pierre Kleinl, op. cit., p.
53: "Cela dit, il n'en reste pas moins vrai que la dénomination d'un instrument peut dans certains
cas apporter un éclairage sur la nature de l'instrument conclu, en tant qu'indice, pann i d'autres,
de la volonté de ses auteurs. En pratique, l'onera en effet moins enclinàreconnaître d'emblée
la valeur juridique d'un acte intitulé 'déclaration d'intention' queàfun instrument dénommé
'accord' ou 'traité'par ces auteurs."
See points 1 and IV of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. PM, Annex 47. 167
(d) The instrument does nat consist of articles, but of six points.
(e) It contains no language of obligation ("shaH") or provisions on entry into
force ("final clauses"), etc.
(f) The instrument does nat conclude with a testimonium ("In witness
whereof ..."), but merely with four signatures, those of the "delegates"
of the three countries taking part at the Conference, and that of the
Secretary-General of the Conference.
(g) The delegates were nat described as Plenipotentiaries, naf did they sign
"For the Government of ChilelEcuadorlPeru".
3.154 In this regard, the Declaration of Santiago may he contrasted with legally
binding agreements concluded between Peru and Chile, and between Peru,
Chile and ather States. For example, the 1954 Complementary Convention
concluded by the same tbree States just two years later- N • The 1954
instrument is entitled, "Convention", it contains the operative words "THEY
AGREE", it hears a solemn testimonium ("In witness whereof"), itrecords in
itspreamble that the representatives of the three States have been appointed
Plenipotentiaries by the Presidents of theirrespective countries, and they signed
"For the ... Government of". In short, the 1954 Complementary Convention
follows in all fonnal respects what is to he expected in a treaty. Moreover, the
final preambular paragraph of the 1954 Complementary Convention recalls
point VI of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago ("[the three Govemments]
expressed their intention to subscrihe agreements or conventions related to
the application of the principles goveming that sovereignty, for the purpose,
in particular,of regulating and protecting hunting and fishing in the maritime
zone that corresponds to them").
Complementary Convention to the Declaration of Sovereignty on the Two-Hundred-Mile
Maritime Zone, signed on 4 December 1954. PM, Annex 51. 168
3.155 Similar fonnality is ta he found in numerous boundary agreements, for
example, the Treaty between Peru and Chile for the Seulement of the Dispute
m
Regarding Tacna and Arica, signed on 3 June 1929 ,and the Treaty ofPeace
and Friendship of 29 November 1984 between Argentina and Chile, Articles
7 ta Il which seule the international maritime boundary between the two
4. Particu/ar Circumstances in which the Declaration afSantiago Was Drawn Up
3.156 The particular circums tances in which the Declaration of Santiago was drawn
up have been described above. It has been amply demonstrated that the
circumstances were such that the purpose of the tbree States was ta adopt
a political stance vis-à-vis third States, nat least the United States and the
United Kingdom, who had challenged the unilateral declarations by Chile
and Peru of 200-nautical-mile zones. There is nothing in the circumstances
in which the Declaration of Santiago was drawn up to suggest an intention to
undertake legally-binding obligations inter se. That was not the purpose of
the exercise, though future agreements were foreshadowed in point VI of the
Declaration.
Treaty for the Settlement ofthe Dispute Regarding Tacna and Arica, with Additional Proto col,
signed on 3 June 1929., Annex 45.
Treaty ofPeace and Friendship between the Government of the Republic of Chile and the
Government of the Republic of Argentina, signed on 29 November 1984. Available at:
<http://treaties. un.oclPublication/UNTS/V olume%201399/volum e-1399-1-23392_English.
pdf> accessed 8 October 2010. 169
5. Subsequent Treafmenf afthe Declaration afSantiago by the States Concerned
3.157 While it is clear that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago was nat, and was nat
intended ta he, a legally-binding instrument, but as a statement of maritime
poliey, over the years the Declaration came ta be treated by the participants
as though it were a treaty. This involved no change in its substance.
3.158 In the Qatar v. Bahrain case, the Court considered the possible effect of the
subsequent conduct of Bahrain and Qatar, in particular the somewhat delayed
registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations (in fact, only six months
after the Minutes were drawn up), and of non-compliance with constitutional
requirements for treaties. It did nat find these points, as raised by Bahrain,
compelling in the particular circumstances of that case lO7• Nevertheless, it is
submitted that such subsequent conduct is notnecessarily without significance
in other clrcumstances, including those of the present case.
3.159 It was not until sometwo or threeyears later, in 1954-1955, that theparticipating
States tookany steps to submit the Declaration of Santiago to their Congresses,
for domestic ratification in accordance with the constitutional provisions in
force at the time in their respective countries. Until then the Declaration
was treated as the purely political document that it was, nothing more and
nothing less than a statement of international maritime policy, a matter for
the Executive. And no steps were taken to register the Declaration with the
Secretariat of the United Nations, as would have been required under Article
102 of the Charter of the United Nations had the Declaration been a treaty,
untilMay 1976.
m Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, Judgment,le.J.Reports 1994, p. 122, paras. 28-29. 170
3.160 Two aspects of the subsequent treatment of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
by the States concemed therefore need ta he addressed, for any light that
they may shed on the legal status of the Declaration: (a) the submission of
the Declaration ta their respective Congresses; and (h) registration with the
United Nations Secretariat under Article 102 of the Charter of the United
Nations.
B. THE DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO CAME TO BE TREATED
BY TIIE PARTICIPATING STATES AS A TREATY
1. Submission afthe Declaration to the Respective Congresses
3.161 It was only sorne time after the fonnulation of the Declaration of Santiago
that, as a direct result of challenges ta the extended maritime zone from
among athers foreign whaling fleets, the tbree participating States submitted
the Declaration ta their respective Congresses 108 for domestic ratification.
The aim was ta give the Declaration "greater weight"m. "Ratification" by
Congress may have given the Declaration of Santiago "the status of a treaty:xxJ
in domestic political tenns. Butsuch domestic approval didnot, in and of itself,
directly affect the status of the instrument as a matter of internationallaw.
That this is so reflects the clear distinction between domestic "ratification",
often by the Congress, and "the international act so named whereby aState
establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty"JOl.
CCM, para. 2.58. Chile in 1954, Peru and Ecuador in 1955.
PM, para 4.70.
This is the expression used in PM, para 4.70.
Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties, article 2.1(b) (definition of 'ratification'). See, inter
alia, Jennings, Robert and Watts, Arthur (eds.): Oppenheims's International Ww. Ninth Edition,
Vol. 1, London, etc., Longman, 1996, p. 1226. "Ratification is defined in the Vienna Convention
... must be distinguished from parliamentary or other domestic ratification (or approval) of a
the international act of ratification,
treaty: although such ratification may be connected with
they are separate procedural acts carried out on different"; Rossenne, Shabtai: "Treaties, 171
As the International Law Commission said in the Commentary ta article 2,
paragraph 1 (b), in its final cIraftarticles on the law of treaties:
"The constitutions of many States contain specifie requirements
of internaI law regarding the submission of treaties ta the
'ratification' or the 'approval' of a particular organ or organs
of the State. These procedures of 'ratification' and 'approval'
have their effects in internallaw as requirements ta he fulfilled
before the competent organs of the State may proceed ta the
international act which will establish the State's consent ta he
bound:>JOl
In the Nicaragua v. United States cf America case, although the Executive
and Congress of Nicaragua had approved a proposal for ratification of the
Protocol of Signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court, the International
Court of Justice held as follows:
"25. ...It may hegranted that the necessary steps had heen taken
at the nationallevel for ratification of the Protocol of Signature
of the Statute. But Nicaragua has not heen able to prove that it
accomplished the indispensable step of sending its instrument of
ratification to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
Conclusion and Entry into Force". In: Bernhardt, Rudolf (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public
Internationalww. Vol. IV, Amsterdam, etc., North-Rolland, 2000, p. 934 "...it is amatter for the
domestic anthorities and the domestic constitution to determine how and whether the State will
consent to be bound bythe treaty. By itself, the domestic decision has no internationallegal effect.
That will only result from the completion of one of the accepted international formalities ".
Aust, Anthony, op. cit., p. 103 "The most common misconception about ratification is that it is a
constitutional processIt is not. ... [I]t is an 'international' act carried out on the 'international'
plane."
United Nations, Yearbook of the International Law Commission: Documents of the Second Part
ofthe Seventeenth Session and ofthe Eighteenth Session including the Reports ofthe Comm ission
to the General Assembly (A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.l), 1966, Vol. II, p. 189, Comment (9).
Available at: <http://untre aty.un.org/ilc/pu blication s/yearbookslYbkvolum esILC_1966_v2_
e.pdf> accessed 8 October 2010. 172
26. The Court therefore notes that Nicaragua, having failed ta
deposit itsinstrument of ratification of the Protocol of Signature
of the Statute of the Permanent Court, was nat a party ta that
treaty."JO]
3.162 It will he recalled that in the Counter-Memorial, Chile daims that "[t]he
Peruvian Congress was under no misapprehension about the boundary
delimitation aspect of the Santiago Declaration.,,:xJThis is simply nat the case.
The only "evidence" cited by Chile for its bold proposition isa newspaper
report of a speech supposedly as delivered before the Peruvian Congress by
Deputy Juan :Manuel Pe:iia Prado) HJ~w.ever, the Official Records of the
06
Peruvian Congress for 5 May 1955 contain no such reference3 •
3.163 What is significant is that the Official Letter from the :Minis try of Foreign
Affairs of Peru addressed ta the Congress together with the 1952 and 1954
instruments)]7, the "Report" issued by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Congress at the time of the approval of said instruments by the legislative
branchJ()8,as well as other official documents that reflect the views of the
Peruvian State at the time, contained no reference to maritime boundaries.
3.164 Likewise, there is no evidence whatever (and Chile has produced none) in the
records of the Chilean Congress of the session at which the 1952 instruments
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, lC.J. Re1984, p. 404, paras. 25-26.
CCM, paras.2.59, 2.60.
Pefia Prado,J.M.: Address to the Congress of Peru, reproduced wn Cronica, 7 May 1955.
CCM, Annex 246.
Records ofthe Second 1954Extraordinary Legislature ofthe Peruvian Congress. Second Session
held on 5May 1955.PR, Annex 7.
Official LetterNo(M)-3-0-A/3 of7 February 1955,from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Pern to the Pern vian Congress. PM, Anne95.
Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Congress of Pern on the Agreements and
Conventions signed byeru, Chile and Ecuador in Santiago, 18August 1952; and in Lima4
December 1954.PM, Annex 96. 173
were approved that the Chilean Congress considered that the Declaration of
Santiago had delimited an international maritime boundary between Peru
and Chile. In particular, Senator Correa, who was charged with securing the
approval of the 1952 instruments before the Chilean Senate, made no such
reference. On the contraI)" in his speech before the Congress he stated that
the Declaration of Santiago:
"... proclaimed as an international maritime policy for the tbree
nations the exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction that they each
possess over the sea, sealJed, and subsoillying within a zone of
200 nautical miles measured from their coasts. This declaration
agrees with those that, between 1945 and the following years,
were issued by almost every President in the continent, as well
as by the International Juridical Committee atRio de Janeiro and
the Tenth Interamerican Conference that was held in Caracas
this year.":XX>
3.165 At the time of the domestic ratification of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
in 1954-1955, there was no exchange between Peru, Chile and Ecuador of
instruments of ratification. It was only much later, through subsequent
concordant practice, including joint registration of the Declaration of Santiago
with the Secretariat of the United Nations in 1976, that the States concerned
came to treat the Declaration as a treaty in their international relations.
2. Registration of the Declaration of Santiago
under Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations in 1976
3.166 The 1952 Declaration of Santiago was eventually registered under Article 102
of the Charter of the United Nations on 12 :May 1976, sorne 24 years after its
Senate Records ofDebates of the Congress ofChile. Twenty-First Ordinary Session, held on 10
August 1954. PR, Annex 20. 174
fonnulation JlO•It has been published in the United Nations Treaty Series]ll
The Declaration of Santiago was initially submitted for registration with the
Secretariat of the United Nations on 3 December 1973 by the tbree States
concemed under cover of a note listing a considerable number of instruments
that, unlike the Declaration, were undoubtedly treaties ab initia.
3.167 It iswell established that the registration, or non-registration, of an instrument
under Article 102 of the Charter is in no way conclusive as ta its status.
"[R]egistration does nat confer on [an instrument] any status which it does
nat already have."Jll
3.168 On the ather hand, registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations
may he evidence that the registering State intend ta treat an instrument as
a treatyJlJ. That is sa in the instant case, even though primary reason for
registration may well have heen a desire further to enhance the political
weight of the Declaration in the context of the hard-fought negotiations on the
200-nautical-mile maritime zone at UNCLOS III (1973-1982).
It has been suggested that a treaty may not be invoked before an organ ofthe United Nations ifhas
been registered, but not "as soon as possible" after its entry into force: Knapp, U. and Martens,
E.: "Article 2". In: Simma, Bruno (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary.
Second Edition, New YoIk, Oxford University Press, 2002, Vol. II, p. 1290; Jacque, Jean-Panl:
"Article 2". In: eot, Jean-Pierre, Alain Pellet and Mathias FoIiean (edsw),Charte des Nations
Unies. Commentaire article par article. 3rd. Edition, Paris, Economica, 2005, pp. 2132-2133.
1952 Declaration of Santiago. PM, Annex 47.
'"
Aust, Anthony, op. cit.pp. 344-345 (footnote ommited). See also the Secretariat note reproduced
in Repertory of the practice of the UN Drgans, Supp 5, Vol. II, para 12; Hutchinson, D.N.:
"The Significance of the Registration or Non-Registration of an International Agreement in
Detennining Whether or Not it Is a Treaty". In: Davidson, Scott (ed.), The Law of Treaties.
Aldershot, etc., AshgatelDartmouth, 2004, pp. 257-290.
Ibid.,p. 345. 175
c. THE DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
W AS AND Is NOT AN INTERNATIONAL MARITIME BOUNDARY AGREEMENT
3.169 The preceding sections have shawn that, when it was fonnulated in August
1952, the Declaration of Santiago was nat intended by its authors ta he a
legally-binding agreement. Only years later did the participating States come
ta deal with the Declaration as a treaty in their international relations. But
these subsequent developments, including domestic ratification and eventual
registration with the Secretariat of the United Nations, did nat add ta, or in
any way alter, the substantive content of what ab initia was a purely political
instrument. In particular, nothing that has happened since 18 August 1952
has transformed the Declaration of Santiago into an international maritime
boundary agreement. The present section addresses this question, further ta
what has already been said in the Memoriap14.
1. Stale Practice in the ConchlSion of International Maritime Boundary Agreements
3.170 When two States wish to conclude an agreement determining an international
maritime boundary between themselves the almost invariable practice is to do
so expressly and in the clearest possible tenns. Precise co-ordinates are spelt
out, and a map is often included, if only for illustrative purposes.
3.171 The agreements collected in the five volumes of International A1aritime
Boundaries m published so far under the auspices of the American Society
of International Law offer ample illustration of this. Virtually all of the
PM, para 4.81.
Charney, J. I., Alexander, L. M. (eInternational Maritime BoundariesVols. 1and 11(1993);
Charney, J. 1., Alexander, L. M. (eds.International Maritime Boundaries,Vol. III (1998);
Charney, J. 1., Smith, R. W. (edInternational Maritime BoundariesVol. IV (2002); Cols on,
D. A., Smith, R. W. (eds.International Maritime BoundariesVol. V (2005). Vol. VI is under
preparation, and is expected to he puhlished in 2010. 176
agreements reproduced in the five volumes are bilateral, and entirely clear in
their intention ta establish a maritime delimitation. Indeed, the exception is
the Declaration of Santiago, which is erroneously described in International
A1aritime BoundarieSJ16 in a way that repeats errars already ta he found in the
Jl7
United States State Department publication Limits in the Seas •
3.172 The contrast between the Declaration of Santiago and a typical international
maritime boundary agreement is apparent if one compares it ta the Colombia
Ecuador Agreement conceming delimitation of marine and submarine areas
and maritime co-operation, signed at Quito on 23 August 1975, which is
cited by Chile in its Counter-Memorial Jl• This bilateral agreement clearly
announces in its titlethatitian "Agreement", andthatitconcems "delimitation
of marine and submarine areas". Its abject and purpose is expressly stated
in its preamble: "that it is expedient to delimit their respective marine and
submarine areas". The preamble records that Plenipotentiaries have been
appointed for this purpose, and the operative words are "Who have agreed".
Article 1 provides that the Parties have "agreed" to designate a certain line
"as the boundary between their respective marine and submarine areas, which
have been established or may be established in the future." Article 3 refers
to areas "up to a distance of 200 miles", not the open-ended reference in
the 1952 Declaration of Santiago to "not less than 200 nautical miles". The
Agreement was subject to ratification, and it was provided that it would enter
Chile-Peru. ReportNumber 3-5. In: Charney, 1.and Alexander, L.M.: International Maritime
Boundaries, Dordrech, etc., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993, Vol. 1, pp. 793-800, but see
COIT.1,Add.1 inter alia reporting Pern's communication to the United Nations Secretary-GeneraI
of 9 January 2001 (PM, Annex 78), which, the editors acknowledge, "caIls into question the
existenceofa binding maritime boundary delimitation between the two states"(International
Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV, p. 2639).
See paras. 4.69-4.73 and 4.142 (i) below.
Agreement concerning delimitation ofmarine and submarine areas and maritime co-operation,
signed on23 August 1975 (996 UNTS 239). Available at: <http://treaties.un.org/doclPublication/
UNTSNolume%20996/volume-996-1-14582-English.pdf> accessed 8October 2010. 177
into force "on the date of the exchange of ratification, which shaH take place
at Bogotâ". The Agreement was "signed in duplicate, both texts being equally
authentic."J10 It was promptly registered with the Secretariat of the United
Nations, under Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, by the two
Parties on 17 February 1976.
2. lrrelevance afthe Attitude ofThird States,
the Secretariat afthe United Nations and Authors
3.173 It goes without saying that, contrary ta the assertions of Chile in its Counter
Memorial, the views of third States, the Secretariat of the United Nations, or
authors can have no effect on either the nature or the content of an instrument.
It is indicative of Chile's difficulty in finding any convillcmg evidence
whatsoever that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago established a lateral
international maritime boundary that it has hadrecourse to such unconvincing
materials J10.
3.174 Chile seeks to draw comfort from the attitude of third States. Chile's strained
attempt topresent Colombia' s 1975 Agreement withEcuador as acceptance that
the 1952 Declaration of Santiago established a boundary along the parallel Jll
is wholly unpersuasive. But even if that were Colombia's view, it would be
immaterial. Colombia was in 1952, and remained until 1979, a third State so
far as concerns the Declaration of Santiago. The same is true of the United
States, China, and the "several States in pleadings before the Court" referred
to by Chile. The attitude of third States towards an instrument fonnulated by
Peru and Chile is of no probative value as to its status or content.
See Article 11 of the Agreement concerning delimitation ofmarineand submarine areas and
maritime co-operation, signed on 23 August 1975 (996 UNTS 239). Available at: <http://treaties.
un.org/doclPublication/UNTS/Volume%20996/volume-996-I-14582-English.pdf>
accessed 8
October 2010.
CCM, paras. 2.223-2.262.
CCM, paras. 2.225-2.227. 178
3.175 Chile likewise seeks ta place sorne weight on a 1991 publication of the United
Nations Secretariat3 , and on another one from 200QJlJ. But the fact that
the Secretariat of the United Nations, in these two publications, may have
mistakenly treated the Declaration of Santiago as an international maritime
boundary agreement (starting, like athers, from the original errar of the Office
of the Geographer of the United States State Department publication Limits
in the Seas)Jl4, cannat alter the fact that it is nat: the actions of the Secretariat
of the United Nations in such a matter do nat have evidential weight, and
obviously cannat affect either the fonn or substance of an instrument between
States.
m
3.176 It is immaterial that the leamed author of the relevant reports in the
unofficial publication International A1aritime Boundaries (mistakenly) treats
the Declaration of Santiago as if it were a treaty. His views, and those of
other authors cited by Chile J1, may be traced back to the United States State
Department publication Limits in the Seas, and lack legal significance.
3.177 Chile implies that the Peruvian authors were unanimous in considering the
existence of an agreed maritime boundary between Peru and Chile in the
Jl7
parallel of latitude •Nevertheless, it provides only one example in the whole
section "C. Publicists". Chilehas chosen not to mention the most distinguished
Peruvian authors, among them, Foreign :Ministers, diplomats and professors
of intemationallaw which have extensively wriUen on Peru and the law of the
sea and have not expressed any view in that sense.
United Nations Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law ofthe SeaThe WW of the Sea -Maritime
Boundary Agreements (1942-1969),1991. CCM, Annex 241.
United Nations, Office of Legal Affairs, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea,
Handbookon the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries, 2000. CCM, Annex 242.
See paras. 4.69-4.73 and 4.14(ibelow.
Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga
CCM, paras. 2.237-2.262.
CCM, para. 2.262. 179
3.178 Itis strikingthatChile deliberately fails ta mention that themostrepresentatives
Peruvian figures contemporaneous ta the Declaration of Santiago, such as Dr.
Alberto Ulloa, who chaired the Peruvian Delegation ta the 1952 Conference
and was one of the main drafters of the Declaration of Santiago, and :MI.
Emique Garcia Sayân Jl, Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time of the 1947
Peruvian daim, never referred ta the existence of maritime boundaries with
Chile.
3.179 Likewise, Chile fails ta cite Peruvian experts on this matter, who have
consistently sustained the absence of a maritime boundary treaty between
Peru and Chile, as well as theneed for the maritime delimitation between both
countries ta he done in accordance with intemationallaw and ta lead ta an
equitable result.
3.180 Amongrenownedauthors in the field of thelaw of the sea that have highlighted
the absence of a maritime boundary treaty between Peru and Chile, Rear
Admiral Guillermo Faura, Professor Eduardo Ferrero Costa, Ambassador
Juan :Miguel Bakula, Ambassador Alfonso Arias-Schreiber, diplomat Marisol
Agüero Colunga and Ambassador Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros stand out.
For example, Eduardo Ferrero Costa, former Minister of Foreign Affairs,
consistently remarked, before and after the 1986 Bakula Memorandum, the
particularlyrelevant are the following texts: Ulloa, Alberto: "Régimen Juridico dei Mar".
(Academia Interamericana de Derecho Comparado e Internacional. Cursos Monograficos.
Vol. VII, LaHabana, Cuba, 1959, pp. 11-87); and "IlIa Reuni6n dei Consejo Interamericano de
Jurisconsultos de México.-Discursos dei Representante dei Peru, doctor Alberto Ulloà'. (Revista
Peruana de Derecho Internacional. Tomo XVI,No. 49, 1956, Enero-Junio, pp. 70-89). The views
ofMr. GarciaSayân can be found, among others, in the following works: Garcia Sayân, Enrique:
"LaDoctrina de las 200 millas y el Derecho dei Mar". (Derecho, Pontificia Universidad Cat61ica
dei Peru, No. 32, 1974, p. 12-27); "Progresi6n de la Tesis de las Doscientas Millas; sintesis de la
conferencia dei Dr. Enrique Garcia Sayân". (Revista de la Academia Diplomatica de! Peru, No.
2,1971, Julio-Setiembre, pp. 60-61); Derecho de! Mar. ws 200 millas y la posici6nperuana.
Lima, [s.n.], 1985. 180
lack of a maritime boundary agreement between Peru and Chile. He asserted
theneed ta negotiate such an agreement, in view of the developments produced
J10
in the law of the sea in the late seventies •
3.181 On this matter, remarks made by Marisol Agüero Colunga and Ambassador
Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros are particularly illustrative.
According ta Marisol Agüero Colunga:
"... it cannat he assumed that there is an agreement between
the three countries on the delimitation of their 200-mile
maritime zones drawn from their continental coasts; this would
imply an agreement on a treaty on maritime boundaries, and
the Declaration of Santiago isneither an international treaty naf
does it properly deal with the maritime boundaries among the
signatory States."JJO
Likewise, Ambassador Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros, former Peruvian Minister
of Foreign Affairs states that:
"The maritime zone established by the Declaration of Santiago
excludes ipso jure all lateral delimitation hypotheses by the
parallel of latitude, since its application would amputated from
Peru a significant portion of its sea area, thereby preventing the
object and purpose thereof of possessing 200 miles, established
by the Declaration, from its realization ...
Ferrero Costa, Eduardo: El Nuevo Derecho de! Mar. El Peru y las 200 millas. Lima, Fondo
Editorial deaPontificia Universidad Cat61ica dei Perii, 1979.
Agüero Colunga, Marisol: Consideraciones para la De!imitacion Maritima de! Peru. Lima,
Fondo Editorial dei Congreso de la Repiiblica, 2001, p. 265. 181
Since no reference is made ta any criterion or nonn for the
delimitation of the continental sea in the frontier zones where the
maritime projections of the Parties overlap, the Declaration left
this matter ta he settled by the application of the International
Law, which, as we have seen, was driven towards the criterion of
the equidistant line.
However, the existence of special circumstances in the area
of the maritime frontier lJetween Peru and Ecuador - the
presence of the Ecuadorean islands of Puna, Santa Clara, de
la Plata, among athers - raised the exp.-ess need ta prevent the
projection of the two hundred miles ofPeru from leaving under
Peruvian sovereignty such Ecuadorean islands or from limiting
the maritime projection of such islands. In order ta solve this
problem, article IV of the Declaration establishes as an {Xception
a delimitation clause Œsed on the line of the p:rrallel, only and
exclusively in the event of the presence of islands belonging
ta one State situated to a distance lesser than the maritime
projection of another State."JJl
3.182 The inescapable conclusion is that a consideration of the fonn and treatment
of the Declaration of Santiago is entirely consistent with the fact that it was
initially conceived as a statement of the international maritime policy of the
three participating States. Nothing suggests that the Declaration, or any part
of il, was intended to operate as an international maritime boundary: all the
indications are against that view. And in any event, whatever its fonnallegal
status the actual provisions declared by the countries concerned could not be
changed by its subsequent registration and treatment as a treaty.
Rodriguez Cuadros, Manuel: Delimitacion maritima con equidad. El casa de Penly Chile. Lima,
Ediciones Peisa, 2007, pp. 152-153. 182
IV. Does Chile Prove Ils Case?
3.183 In this case Chile argues, expressly and unequivocally, that the international
maritime boundary was established by agreement in the 1952 Declaration
of Santiago. Chile says: "[t]he Parties have already delimited their maritime
boundary by agreement, in the Declaration on the Maritime Zone (theSantiago
Declaration)."JJl Peru denies that. The Declaration was nat intended ta
constitute, and did nat constitute, an agreement establishing an international
boundary.
3.184 The anus lies on Chile ta praye its central daim that Peru entered into an
agreement with Chile in 1952, which remains in force and definitively fixes
the international maritime boundary between them for all purposes. Peru has
explained in detai! in its Memorial why it denies that "the Parties have already
delimited their maritime boundary by agreement" and sorne aspects of that
explanation have been revisited in this chapter. The essential points are:
(a) That the Declaration of Santiago does not say that it is establishing any
maritime boundaries between the States that made it.
(h) That the Declaration of Santiago was not intended to establish any
maritime boundaries between the States that made it.
(c) That the Declaration of Santiago was not intendedin 1952 to bea binding
treaty and was not treated as such at that time in the constitutional
processes of the States Parties.
CCM, para. 1.3. 183
3.185 In the Nicaragua v. Honduras case the Court said, in words that go directly ta
the core of the present case:
"The establishment ofapennanentmaritime boundary isamatter
of grave importance and agreement isnat easily ta 1Jpresumed.
A defacto line might in certain circumstances correspond ta the
existence of an agreed legal boundary or might he more in the
nature of a provisional line or of a line for a specifie, limited
purpose, such as sharing a searee resource. Even if there had
been a provisionalline found convenient for a period of time,
this is ta he distinguishedfrom an internationall:xmndary."JJJ
3.186 In particular, the Court should nat infer an agreement on a full and
permanent international maritime boundary from the limited practice of the
two States. As the Arbitral Tribunal observed in the North Atlantic Coast
Fisheries Case-
"... a line which would bruit the {Xercise of sovereignty of a
State within the bruits of its own territory can he drawn only on
the ground of exp.-ess stipulation, and not by implication from
stipulations concerning a different subject-matter"JJ4.
3.187 It isccordingly submitted that Chile has failed to prove that an international
maritime boundary was established in the 1952 Declaration of Santiago, and
that Chile's case must therefore fail.
m Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaraguav.Honduras), Judgment, lC.J. Reports2007, p. 135, para 253.
The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (Great Britain,United StatAward, 7 September
1910, RIAA, Vol. XI, p. 187. CHAPTERIV
PRACTICE AFTER THE 1952
DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
1. Introduction
4.1 Chile has pinned its case ta the proposition that an international maritime
boundary was established by agreement between Peru and Chile in the 1952
Declaration of Santiago. Nonetheless, in Chapters II and III of its Counter
Memorial Chile refersta events after 1952 and seeks ta discem in them signs
of an acknowledgment and confirmation of the alleged "1952 boundary".
4.2 Clearly, events after 1952 cannat changewhat the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
says. Nor does Chile seek ta argue that they do. Rather, Chile presents these
later events as"subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which
establishes the agreementof the parties regarding its interpretation", under
Article 31(3)(b)of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesm . They
are, according ta Chile, relevant because of the light that they cast upon what
Peru and ChiZe did in 1952. It is therefore necessary for Peru to respond to
Chile's submissions conceming post-1952 events.
CCM, para. 4.29. 186
II. The Six 1954 Agreements
4.3 Chile seeks ta argue, using the travaux préparatoires of the 1954 Agreement
on a Special Zone, that there was an understanding among the signatory States
that, contrary ta what point IV of the Declaration of Santiago actually says,
point IV was intended ta apply ta mainland coasts and imposed the parallel of
latitude as the maritime boundary. That is incorrect.
4.4 Chile's Counter-Memorial refers tbroughout ta "the 1954 Lima Agreement",
as if Chile, Ecuador and Peru had gathered for the sole purpose of adopting
that instrument. In fact,t was only one of the six agreements concluded at the
Second Conference on Exploitation and Conservation of the :MarineResources
of the South Pacifie. The ather agreements were: (1) the Complementary
Convention ta the Declaration of Sovereignty on the Two-Hundred-:Mile
Maritime Zone; (2) the Convention on the System of Sanctions; (3) the
Convention on Measures on the Surveillance and Control of the Maritime
Zones of the Signatory Countries; (4) the Convention on the Granting of
Permits for the Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific; and (5) the
Convention on the Ordinary Annual Meeting of the Permanent Commission
for the South Pacific (for Whaling Activities)JJ6.
4.5 The 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone is thus one of a range of fishery-related
m
measures which, as Chile acknowledges , were focused on the defence of
the 200-nautical-mile claim that was the subject of the Santiago Declaration
- although the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone does not expressly refer
to the Declaration of Santiago. The Agreement on the Special Zone is not
336 These agreements appear as PR, Annexes 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.
CCM, paras. 2.182-2.183. 187
even the most important among the 1954 agreements: as Chile notes, "[t]he
main instrument being prepared at the 1954 Inter-State Conference was the
Complementary Convention."JJ8 As was explained in the Memorial, the
purpose of the 1954 Complementary Convention was ta reinforce regional
solidarity in the face of opposition from third States ta the 200-nautical
mile daims]);). In 1954, as in 1952, the primary foeus was on maintaining
a united front on the part of Chile, Ecuador and Peru towards third States,
rather than upon the development of an intemallegal régime defining their
rightsinter se.
4.6 One might gain the impression from the Counter-Memorial that the 1954
Conferencewas a planned stage in thesystematic developmentof alegalrégime
that had begun with the 1947 unilateral daims. Hindsight is a powerful tao!
for imposing rationality and order upon the sequence of practical responses
to the demands of the moment that make up the politicallife of a State. The
fact is that there was no master-plan in 1947, in 1952, in 1954, or at any
time thereafter. The idea of a 200-nautical-mile zone had been adopted as a
way of addressing the problems caused by the depredations of foreign fishing
vessels; and that basic idea was applied in a series of specific measures aimed
J4O
at particular aspects of the fishing and whaling problem •
4.7 Today aState may claim an exclusive economic zone, knowing what that
claim entails andknowing that it implies a need eventually to define the limits
of its exclusive economic zone as against the zones of neighbouring States
CCM,para. 2.190. The 1954 Complementary Convention appears asPM, Annex 51.Paradoxically,
Chile did not ratify
PM, paras. 4.90-4.94.
In fact, the 1954 Conference was convened within the context of the challenge posed by
foreign fleets, such as the Olympie whaling fleet owned by Aristotle Onassis. See PM,
paras. 4.82-4.87. 188
- although even now such defined limits are usually negotiated over long
periods, and usually years after the initial daim is made. But sixty years aga
the South American States were feeling their way in uncertain, uncharted
waters, without the benefit of the clarity brought by later developments on the
law of the sea.
4.8 Chile seeks ta extract from the minutes of the 1954 Conference proof of an
acknowledgement that international maritime boundaries had been implicitly
established by point IV of the Declaration of Santiago in 1952. The text of
point IV, the circumstances of its drafting, and the aims of the signatories of the
Declaration of Santiago have been analysed in detail in Chapter III above3 4•
That analysis makes it clear that there was no intention on the part of the
authors of the Declaration of Santiago ta agree upon one or more international
maritime boundaries in 1952. The premise on which Chile' s arguments using
the 1954 travaux préparatoires rests is incorrect; and on this ground alone
those arguments must fail. There are, however, other reasons that indicate
why Chile's account is incorrect; and for the sake of completeness those
reasons are canvassed here.
4.9 The purpose of the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone was limited. As was
made clear in the text of the Agreement, and as is accepted by Chile J.ll, the
solepurpose was to avoid "innocent and inadvertent violations of the maritime
frontier between adjacent States ... [by] small vessels manned by crews with
insufficient knowledge of navigation or not equipped with the necessary
instruments"J 4J. The 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone had nothing to do
See Chapter III, paras. 3.61-3.118 above.
CCM, paras. 2.198. The suggestion in para. 2.180 ofCCM that the 1954 Agreement on a Special
Zone "dealt solely with issues connected to the lateral delimitation" ofthe maritime zones ofthe
participants in the Declaration of Santiago is inaccurate.
Agreement on a Special ZonePM, Annex 50. 189
with the seabed or subsoil, or with navigation or any ather use of the water
column apart from fishing.
4.10 The 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone was nat even addressed ta all fishing
vessels, but only ta those fishing vessels "with insufficient knowledge of
navigation or nat equipped with the necessary instruments" - and then only
of such vessels "of either of the adjacent countries" J44.It did nat even purport
ta apply ta Ecuadorean vessels fishing in the waters off the endpoint of the
Peru-Chile land boundary or ta Chilean vessels in the waters off the endpoint
of the Peru-Ecuador land boundary.
4.11 It is cornillon ground that the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone established
no new boundary or frontier, and that it did nat purport ta change the legal
character of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. Nor could the conclusion of
the Agreement on a Special Zone affect the answer ta the question whether
Chile is correct in maintaining that in 1954 its maritime boundary with Peru
had already been established by the 1952 Declaration of Santiago.
4.12 Chile asserts that in Peru it was "well understood" that the 1954 Agreement
on a Special Zone was premised on the fact that Peru had a maritime boundary
with Chile following the parallel of latitJ u4.eIt cites only one piece of
evidence in support of that proposition: a presentation by Pedro Martinez
de Pinillos, a geographer, made to an association of graduates of an institute
related to a Peruvian university.Mr. :Martinez de Pinillos didnot represent the
Government, had not consulted the Government, and did not give an accurate
statement of the Govemment position J4 Nor•is there any evidence that he
even consulted a lawyer on this question.
See the first pre amble clause and Article 2 of the 1954 Agron a Special Zone. PM,
Annex 50.
CCM , paras. 2.213-2.215.
Ibid. 190
4.13 Chile also refers ta the minutes of the first session of the 1954 Conference
conceming the 'dividing line of the jurisdictional sea', arguing that they
"record the agreement between Chile, Ecuador and Peru that the Santiago
Declaration had already delimited their maritime l:xmndaries."J47 But the
1954 minutes J48record no such thing.
4.14 What the 1954 minutes actually say is that the parties "deemed the matter
on the dividing line of the jurisdictional waters (la linea divisoria de las
aguas jurisdiccionales) settled"J49. There is no mention of what Chile refers
ta in its Counter-Memorial as the "maritime boundaries". The reference is ta
"jurisdictional waters".
4.15 What, precisely, was "settled" and when was it settled? The Ecuadorean
representative initiated the debate in the 1954 Conference, proposing a
provision that would clarify the concept of the dividing line of thejurisdictional
waters. The Agreement was conceived as establishing the zone "between the
two countries" (entre los dos paises)J'50 - Peru and Ecuador, the proposing
States - contrary to the impression given in the Counter-Memorial, that refers
to a zone between "adjacent States" Pe~ulratified the Agreement in 1955
and Ecuador in 1964. It seems clear that the focus was on the waters between
Peru and Ecuador, although the buffer zone arrangement was in fact also
applied in the waters between Peru and Chile. The minutes do not reveal what
the Ecuadorean delegate specific concern was in initiating the debate. AlI that
is clear is thathe issue arose because the Ecuadorean representative insisted
CCM, para. 1.33.
Minutes of the First Session of Commission 1 of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 2 December
1954 at10.00am., CCM, Annex 38.
Ibid.p. 3.
1954 Agreement on a Special Zone, Arti1.PM, Annex 50.
CCM, para. 2.179. 191
that "[a]rticle 4 of the Declaration of Santiago was aimed at establishing the
principle of delimitation of waters regarding thislands" Thislwas itself
an interesting insight into what Ecuador considered had and had nat been
agreed in 1952.
4.16 The Peruvian and Chilean representatives are recorded as saying that they
"believe that Article 4 of the Declaration of Santiago is clear enough". But
what was clear? It will he recalled that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
contams in point IV a provision conceming the liruits of maritime zones
around islands IJcontains no reference ta maritime boundaries. Nor does
it contain a reference ta the limitations upon the maritime zones generated by
mainland coasts.
4.17 It is evident that in 1954 the representativwere focusing on a number of
practical issues conceming the regulation of fisheries arising in the wake of
the 1952 Conference. It is evident that one of the 1954 agreements concemed
the establishment of a 'zone of tolerance' for certain small fishing vessels.
It is obvious that such a zone had to be measured in sorne way that enabled
small fishing vessels to detennine where they were in relation to the zone of
tolerance. And, as was noted in the Memorial:5positions in relation to lines
of latitude are the only positions that can easily be detennined at sea by local
fishennen using basic equipment. Practical expediency detennined that the
SpecialZone should be defined by reference to a line of latitude.
4.18 Peru andChile areneighbouring States. Each has its own fishing communities.
Those communities have asense of what "their" fishing grounds are. With aland
Minutes of the First Session of Commission 1 of the 1954 Inter-State Conference, 2 December
1954 at 10.00 a.m., p. 3 (emphasis added). CCM, Annex 38.
See para 3.69 above.
PM, para. 4.101. 192
border lying in the corner of a concave coastline it was practically inevitable
that disputes would arise as ta which fishing grounds were "Peruvian" and
which were "Chilean" as in fact they arase, especially in the context of the
development of the artisanal fishing activities near the land boundary area. A
means of averting such friction was desirable. The use of the line of latitude,
discemible by small, ill-equipped fishing vessels, was nat only an obvions
solution: it was the only practical solution. The 1954 Agreement on a Special
Zone, ratified by Chile in 1967, put in place a practical régime for policing
fisheries based on the Iille of latitude. :MI. Llosa and :MI. Cruz Ocampo,
representing Peru and Chile respectively in the 1954 Conference, may have
thought that the Declaration of Santiago had already indicated, in sorne way,
that the use of a parallel of latitude was an acceptable basis for arrangements
concerning thepolicing of fisheries: but that belief cannot convert thefisheries
policing line into an international maritime boundary.
4.19 Chile makes a number of other points concerning the interpretation of the
1954 agreements. It offers an alternative explanation of the meaning of the
reference in the 1954 agreement on a Special Zone to the parallel "between
the two countries"m. It appears to suggest (wrongly) that Peru acknowledges
thataPeru-Ecuador maritime boundary was set by theDeclaration of Santiago
and/or the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone J:56It refers to the mention of
the tenn 'maritime zone' in another of the 1954 agreements m, but without
any explanation of why that mention should be thought to entail the existence
of a defined international maritime boundary.
CCM, paras. 2.202-2.205.
CCM, para 2.208. There is no dispute over the maritime boundary between Peru and Ecuador;
but that is not because the maritime boundary was established by the 1952 or 1954 instruments.
Peru has stated that there are no boundary problems with Ecuador aud that by virtue of \'.hat
is expressly stated in the second part of point IV of the Declaration ofSautiago the parallel of
latitude from the point at which the land boundary reaches the sea is only applicable to Peru aud
Ecuador, due to the presenceof islauds near the land border ofboth countries. See Chapter III,
para. 3.81 above.
CCM, para 2.211. 193
4.20 Chile states that it was "publicly understood in Peru in the 1950s that Peru
had agreed a maritime boundary with Chile following a parallel oflatitude"J~8
and cites in support the views of one geographer expressed at a conference
in 1956 3:5>It ignores the complete absence of any official record in Chile
or Peru of the establishment or existence of such an international maritime
boundary at this time, and the explanations (discussed in Chapter III above=)
ta the statements by representatives of Chile and Peru in 1956 emphasizing
the very limited purpose of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. It ignores the
fact that Chilean legislation such as the 1953 Decree with Force of Law No.
292, the Fundamental Law of the Directorate General of Maritime Territory
and Merchant MarineJ:ll, which was adoptedafter the Declaration of Santiago,
defined thelimits of Chileanjurisdiction without any reference to the existence
of lateral maritime boundaries.
4.21 Chile summarizes the publications of third States and publicistSJ:ll that refer
to the parallel as a maritime boundary - although, as is shown below, those
references all copy one source: the Limits in the Seas report, complete with its
mistakenreference to the coordinates of theparallelJ:l J•It refers to the domestic
treaty processes concerning the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone, without
offering an explanation as to why something as important as an international
boundary could have gone unremarked and umatified C64•
CCM, para 2.215.
See para 4.12 above.
See paras. 3.132-3.138 above.
Decree with Force ofLawNo. 292 of25 July 1953, Fundamental Law ofthe Directorate General
of Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine.PM, Annex 29.
See CCM, paras. 2.224-2.229, 2.237-2.262.
See paras. 4.69-4.74 below.
See also PM, 4.104 and 4.114. 194
4.22 None of these attempts ta infer an international maritime boundary agreement
from selected oblique references ta zones or parallels can conceal the yawning
hale at the heart of Chile's case: there isno evidence whatever in official
governmental papers from Chile and Peru that in 1952 an international
boundary agreement had been agreed between them.
ill. Events after 1954
A. PRACTICAL ARRANGEMENTS AND SPECIFIePuRPOSE REGIONS
4.23 In Chapter III of its Counter-Memorial,Chile refers ta post-1954 practice and
events which, it says, "confinn the Parties' contemporaneous understanding
that theirmaritime zones had been delimited fully and definitive by t"eJ:l~
1952 Declaration of SantiagoJ:l6.
4.24 It is nat necessary ta address the details of this practice - although Peru
should nat he taken ta accept the accuracy of Chile' s account - because the
critical point is that, accordingta Chile, the accumulation of instances in
which the parallel of latitude was used by Chile and Peru in the context of
marine activities is evidence that the international maritime boundary was
agreed between them in 1952 and that both States clearly understood this to
be the case.
4.25 Peru's point is that there is a fundamental flaw in this reasoning. There was
agreement upon the use of the line for the purposes of fisheries policing: the
parallel was applicable in the context of the sea areas off the Peru-Ecuador
365 CCM, para 3.3.
366 CCM, para 3.1. 195
land boundary, and a similar practice in fact operated in the sea areas off the
Peru-Chile land boundaryJ:l7. But no amount of practice conceming fisheries
policin J:lcan convert the line on which the zone of tolerance was based into
g
a permanent, all-purpose international maritime boundary applicable ta the
sea, seabed and subsoil and superjacent airspace.
4.26 Chile will no doubt say that it also refers ta other, non-fisheries activities that
also employed the parallel, such as the operations of the Chilean Navy= and
the authorization of marine scientific research J70• But this again misses the
point. There is a difference between the use of a line in the sea for limited
purposes and agreement upon a permanent international maritime boundary.
4.27 Chile alsa raises the question of the erecting of the light towers in 1968-69 J7l•
The coastallights have limited significance, as is apparent as saon as their
physical characteristics are considered. The lights were intended to be visible
from sea out to a range of about Il miles J7l•The only vessels to which they
would have had any value as markers were small coastal fishing vessels.
4.28 This was indicated by the language used in correspondence, including the
diplomatie correspondence where the Chilean representative refers to the
express purpose of the construction of the light towers: it was "in order to act
as a waming to fishing vessels that nonnally navigate in the maritime frontier
PM, para 4.105.
CCM, paras. 3.7-3.18.
CCM, para 3.4.
CCM, paras. 3.115-3.119.
CCM, paras. 3.19 if
m Chile makes the silly point that Peru "suggests ... that the lighthouses should have been visible
from a distance of200 nautical miles ... This wouId have required installations of sorne 10,000
metres in height", CCM, para 3.36. That is not Pern's point. The point is that the light towers
were not intended to have any function except to help near-shorefishermen to detennine their
position. See PM, paras. 4.122 y 4.123 and PM, Figure 4.3. 196
J74
zone."m That view has been illaintained by Chile • It is also confirmed by the
statement of Ambassador Javier Pérezde Cuéllar, who was Secretary-General
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time m , and by the thorough account
of the circumstances which led ta the erection of the light towers, contained
in a Memorandum dated24 January 1968, sent by the HeadofPeru's Borders
Department ta the Secretary-General of Peru's :Ministry of Foreign Affairs J7•
The infonnality of the episode, the absence of any indication in either the
language or the technical procedures employed of any intention ta delimit
a precise maritime boundary, and the express words used, all point clearly
ta the fact that the sole purpose of the 1968 lights was ta show near-shore
fishennen where the land boundary between Peru and Chile lay and whose
coasts they were alongside.
4.29 The concern was nat ta mark a permanent maritime border but to signal the
whereabouts of the line used for fisheries policing J77•As Chile itself states,
the "lighthouses were constructed as a practical solution for a specifie
purpose."J78 No ''broader understanding"J70 over an already-agreed, permanent
and definitive maritime boundary for all purposes can be inferred from the
episode conceming the coastallights. They were another instance of the two
States finding a practical solution to a gap that had become apparent in the
arrangements for policing coastal fisheries.
Note No. 242 of 29 August 1968, from the Embassy ofChile to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
ofPeru. PM, Annex 75.
See the Aide-mémoire of25 January 2002 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofChile to the
chargéd'affaires of Pern, transcribed in amessage ofthe same date from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs ofChile to the Chilean Embassy in Peru. CCM, Annex 100.
Statement ofMr. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. Appendix B to this Reply.
Memorandum No. (J)-ll of 24 January 1968, from the Head of Borders Department to the
Secretary-General ofthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pern. PR, Annex 10.
See paras. 4.82, 4.141 and 4.1(b)and (c).
CCM, para. 3.6.
Ibid. 197
4.30 Chile tries ta give the practice a significance that it simply does nat have.
When the question of the liruits of search and rescue regions arase in the
International Maritime Organization (lMO), Argentina suggested ta the IMO
that the boundary between the Argentine and Chilean regions should he the
Cape Hom meridian "as this meridian constitutes the boundary between the
Atlantic and Pacifie Oceans"J80. Chile responded, pointing out that "[t]he
delimitation of search and rescue regions, in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph 2.1.7 [of the Annex ta the International Convention on :Maritime
Search and Rescue, 1979 38], is nat related ta and shaH nat prejudice the
delimitation of any boundary between States", adding that "[t]hedetermination
of a supposed limit between the Pacifie and Atlantic Oceans as a basis for
establishing areas of responsibility implies a view which clearly exceeds both
the letter and the spirit of the 1979 Convention"J81. Peru shares that view, and
is surprised that in its Counter-Memorial J8JChile cites its own legislation (not
even Peru's legislation) on maritime search and rescue as evidence of the
existence of an international boundary.
4.31 In paragraphs 3.78 to 3.86 of the Counter-Memorial Chile attempts to argue
that "[t]he lines in the sea which are used to detennine points of entry
[under the Peruvian maritime notification system (SISPER)] are the limits
of the sovereignty and jurisdiction of Peru and Chile, including their lateral
boundary ."J84This is not correct. The purpose of SISPER is, as its preamble
International Maritime Organization, Information on National Search and Rescue Facilities.
Statement by the Government of Argentine of 16 August 1984, document SAR.3/Circ.3/Rev.2,
annex 4,p. 12.
International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 27 April 1979, UNTS 23489.
InternationalMaritime Organization, Information on National Search and Rescue Facilities.
Statement by the Government of Chile, date illegible, document SAR.3/Circ.4, annex 1, pp. 32-
33.
CCM, para 3.59.
CCM, para 3.78. 198
makes clearJ ta8l~,coastal authorities know where merchant ships and ships
or vessels conducting authorized activities (research, fishing, oceanography
exploration, etc.) are, sa that they could promptly he helped by the Peruvian
maritime authorities in the event of an emergency or accident at sea. It enables
Peru ta fulfil its international obligation ta safeguard life at sea, established
in SAR Convention of 1979. SISPER was nat conceived as an instrument ta
enforce Peruvian jurisdiction on passing shi ps J86.
4.32 As Chile rightly points out, Peru's 1987 Regulation of Captaincies and
Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities refers ta "the frontier boundary
between Peru and Chile"J87. But the suggestion that this indicates a reversal
of Peru's position on the non-existence of the maritime boundary is utterly
implausible. Chile relies upon "[t]he tenns used in Peru's legislation", which
it says "are self-explanatory and unqualified."J88 The Regulation that Chile
refers to defines a Peruvian Maritime District -Maritime District No. 31- and
reads as follows:
"Jurisdiction: from the provincial limit between Caraveli and
Camana (Parallel16 25'South) to the frontier boundary between
Peru and Chile".J80
Spanish text reads as follows:
"Jurisdicci6n: desde ellimite provincial entre Caraveli y Camana
(Paralelo 16 25' Sur) hasta el limite fronterizo entre Peru y
Chile".
See Directoral Resolution No. 0313-94/DCG of 23 September 1994, Approving the Peruvian
Positioning and Security Information System Issued by the Ministry of Defence. PR, Annex
13.
Ibid., see Appendix 1 to Annex 6.
CCM, para. 4.32. See also Supreme Decree No. 002-87-MA of 11 June 1987 approving the
Regulation ofCaptainciesand Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities. CCM, Annex 174.
CCM, para. 4.32.
Article A-020301, poinfI of Supreme Decree No. 002-87-MA of 11 June 1987 approving the
Regulation ofCaptainciesand Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities. CCM, Annex 174. 199
The plain meaning of the Regulation is that when it refers ta the "frontier
boundary", italludes ta the land boundary between Peru and Chile. It defines
the liruits of the districts in tenns of the stretch of coastline that each district
cavers. Chile misinterprets this point.
4.33 The 1987 Regulation was adopted in June 1987, months after Peru had
spelled out ta Chile in the clearest and simplest of terms that the two States
had nat yet agreed upon a definitive international boundary - a fact which,
alone, should make it clear that the phrase quoted by Chile could nat refer
ta an international maritime boundary between the two States, because Peru
and Chile had nat agreed upon a boundary in the intervening months. But
the daily routine of law enforcement, harbour supervision, and sa on in the
locality cannat he suspended until such time as the two Govemments do reach
agreement upon a definitive boundary. The expectation was no doubt that
the long-standing modus operandi with Peru's southem neighbour would
continue in relation to policing the waters off that coast. It would have been
reasonable to assume, given the satisfactory operation of the arrangement
conceming fisheries, that if other law-enforcement actions were confined to
the area north of the parallel there would be no confrontation with Chile. Peru
made clear its view that there was no boundary and took reasonable steps to
maintain maritime policing in a non-provocative manner. It is an instance of
what the Court has called the "concem not to aggravate the situation pending
a definitive setdement of the boundary ."YX!
4.34 Chile attempts to discem implicit recognition of the existence of a maritime
boundary even when its own practice at the time contradicts the position that
itnow adopts. To take another example, Chile now suggests that the modus
390 Maritime Delimitation in theArea between Green/and and Jan Mayen, Judgment, lC.J. Reports
1993, p. 54. para 35. ibid.,pp. 54-55. 200
operandi for dealing with illegal drug-trafficking, in 2002, "indicates both
Parties' understanding that a maritime boundary was in place." );» ) Chile's
position at the time was, however, rather different.
4.35 Chile suggested that the Navies of Peru and Chile conclude an agreement
providing for action against suspected offenders "in their respective waters
of jurisdictional responsibility" (itself a tenn that falls sorne way short of a
reference ta maritime territory), including a 'non-pursuit' provision requiring
the discontinuation of pursuits when ships entered the waters of the ather
Statel>ll. Peru broadly agreed with Chile's proposals on condition that a
disclaimer he included, as point No. 5:
"5) General Consideration
The content of this cbcument shaHnat p.-ejudice, affect or amend
the positions of our respective States as regards the nature,
boundaries or scope of their zones under national jurisdiction,
or their positions with respect to the international instruments
addressing these matters.":llJ
Chile responded that such a disclaimer was unnecessary:
"1) Although the new document sulJmitted by the Peruvian
Navy delegation did include sorne of the proposals made by the
Chilean Navy, in general tenns, there were no observations to
the text, except for point No. 5, which was included in the last
amendment made by the Peruvian Navy.
CCM, para 3.108.
FinalMinutes ofUnderstanding ofthe Eleventh Bilateral Meeting between the Commanders of
the FrontierNaval Zones ofChile and Peru , 16 August 2002. CCM, Annex 28.Itis notable that
the provision would not have been confined to non-pursuit into theritorial sea of the other
State, v.hich is all that internationallaw wouIdhave required. That fact underlines the essentially
pragmaticnature ofthe proposal.
See Final Minutes ofUnderstanding of the XII Bilateral Meeting ofthe Commanders-in-Chief
of the FrontierNaval Zones ofChile and Peru from 21 to 25 July 2003. PR, Annex 88. 201
3) The agreement does no! address the nature if the boundaries
or the sape if the jurisdictional zones, sa it cannat pn:judge,
affect or amend them. :MJreover, each jurisdictional zone 1S
determined by the cbmestic laW3of each country.
4) The agreements between the Naval Zones are only intended
ta increase co-operation in terms of maritime operations,
without making any reference to treaties or boundary issues;
for this reason, signing an agreement at the Navallevel, with the
provision setforth under point No. 5 "general considerations", is
beyond the authority cf the Chilean Navy since such issue is a
mattercfbilateml politicsand therefore an exclusive prerogative
of the Mnistry ofForeign Affairs ofChile.',Jo;l4
In fact, the 'non-pursuit' provision was never agreed upon);l~.
4.36 Chile also argues that in 2()()(),the High Commands of the Anned Forces
of Chile and Peru considered the need to have a procedure for exchanging
information on the control of maritime traffic exercised "within the waters
under the jurisdiction of each country"J96.Once again, Chile only mentions the
initial discussions on the issue. Chiledoes notmention that in 2002, theChilean
authorities submitted the proposal "Basis of a Bilateral Agreement between
the Chilean Navy and the Peruvian Navy for the exchange of information
on maritime traffic control", suggesting that the area for the maritime traffic
394 LeUerNo. 2230/25 of3 September 2003, from the Chief ofthe General Staff ofthe Chilean Navy
to the Chief of the General Staff of the Pernvian Navy (emphasis added). PR, Annexes 89 and 90.
Discussions between the Peruvian and the Chilean Navy for establishing a common strategy on
co-ordinated operations to deal with illegal drng-trafficking were definitely cancelled. Bilateral
co-operation on thisatter is carried out until now solely for the exchange of infonn ation. See
Minutes of the IV Meeting of the General Staffs and the XIX Bilateral Intelligence Meeting
between the Chilean Navy and the Peruvian Navy from 15 to 16June 2006. PR, Annex 91.
CCM, para 3.107. 202
control would he the SAR areas under responsibility of each countryJOJ.The
proposal was adopted on that basis and the measure is being applied by bath
countries since 2003);) 8.As Chile has recognized, the delimitation of search
and rescue areas shaH nat prejudice the delimitation of any boundary between
the States J9>l.
4.37 Chile also daims that Peru uses the parallels oflatitude 3°24' S and 18°21' S
"as the laterallimits of its airspace" and that "Peru does sa both in its internal
law and under the Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944'''\00.
However, neither the Peruvian Constitution, nOf any domestic Peruvian law,
nOf the Chicago Convention refers ta any parallel of latitude as the lateral
boundary of Peru.
4.38 Peru's Political Constitution of 1993 affinns that the State has sovereignty
and jurisdiction over its airspace up ta the liruit of 200 nautical miles, without
prejudice ta the freedom of international communications and in compliance
with the law and treaties which Peru has ratified 401•The Constitution of 1993
Minutes of the III Meeting between Representatives of the Maritime Authorities of Chile and
Peru, of 16-18 April 2002. Annex A: "Proposal for the implementation ofUnderstandings IV
and VI approved during the XII Roundtable Discussions between the Senior Commanders of
the Anned Forces of Chile and Peru (November 1998) and dealt with at the First Meeting of
the Maritime Authorities ofboth countries", "Point 1: Bases of a Bilateral Agreement between
the Chilean Navy and the Peruvian Navy for the exchange of infonnation on maritime traffic
control".PR, Annex 86.
m
Fax No. 5 of 27 January 2003 from the Directorate General of the Maritime Territory and
Merchant Marine of the Chilean Navy (Directemar) to the General Director ofCaptainciesand
Coastguards of the Pernvian Navy, officially accepting the agreements recorded in the Minutes
of the IV Meeting between the Representatives of the Maritime Authorities ofChile and Pern.
PR, Annex 87.
See para. 4.30 above.
See CCM, para. 3.109.
Article 54ofthe Political Constitution of Pern of 1993. PM, Annex 19. 203
402
modified the treatment of airspace as featured in the Constitution of 1979 ,
in order ta facilitate Peru's accession ta the 1982 Convention on the Law of
the Sea 40•
4.39 In this context, among the most important treaties ratified by Peru is
the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7
December 1944, which serves as the basis for the determination of the limits
of FIRs (Flight Information Regions) within the International Civil Aviation
Organization (lCAO) system. In the Lima FIR zone, Peru is responsible for
aeronautical information services, and for providing assistance and security
for air navigation. Aireraft report their entry and exit from the Lima FIR zone,
the bruits of which are established in the light of technical considerations
relating ta the tasks and services proffered and without prejudice ta the bruits
of the spaces that faH under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Peruvian
404
State .
4.40 Chile seeks to assimilate the Lima FIR to Peruvian airspace, without taking
into account the fact that these concepts differ not only in their juridical
nature but also in their geographical extent. The Lima FIR extends to the
west up to the 90° meridian, which in sorne places is more than 800 nautical
miles from the Peruvian coast. Furthennore, the points of entrance (lRE:MI
and PAGUR) mentioned in an overflight authorization referred to by Chile40~
When dealing with airspace, the Constitution of 1979 did not include an express reference to the
freedom of international communications.
See CCM, para 2.170. See also the Minutes ofthe 1993 Democratie Constituent Congress where
appears that the incorporation in the Constitutional text ofthe express reference to the "freedom
of international communications" when referring to the airspace, had the purpose of facilitating
Peru's accession to the 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea Records ofthe 1993 Constituent
Congress Regarding the Manner in Which the Maritime Domain was Addressed in the Text of
the Constitution. PR, Annex 12.
See PM, footnote 197.
See CCM, para 3.112. 204
are points of entrance ta the Lima FIR, and no! ta Peruvian airspace. Peru
has consistently referred ta the Lima FIR and nat ta international liruits
in the context of overflight authorizations. This has been done taking into
consideration Peruvian obligations under the Chicago Convention.
4.41 Chile takes an incidentthatoccurredon 24 April 1992 out of context, presenting
it as if a United States aireraft circulating miles off the Peruvian shore had
been intercepted 40• In fact, an unidentified United States C-130 airplane was
seen overflying the Alto Huallaga forest, in Peruvian territory, and it was
thought that the plane might he crewed by drug smugglers. The Peruvian
security system was activated, and when the plane crossed the Andean
mountain range and headed towards the shore in the direction of the frontier
with Ecuadof, its position was verified by radar and passed ta the Peruvian air
base in Talara. Two Peruvian aircraft activated the international procedures
for the interception of unidentified aircraft - including repeated unsuccessful
attempts at communication with the aircraft. It was only when the C-130 had
landed that it was established that it was a United States aircraft, with a crew
in the service of that country's Government. It was later discovered, the C-
130's flight plan only included the trip to and from Panama and Guayaquil.
Destinations in Peru were not included in the itinerary - even less, zones as
sensitive to national security as the Alto Huallaga, where interdictions were
being implemented against suspected drug traffickers.
4.42 There are several important points to be made in relation to Chile' s
accumulation of factual references to the parallel.
CCM, para 2.171. See also CCM, Annexes 221 and 309. 205
4.43 First,there is no dispute that fisheries policing was conducted with reference
ta the Iille, as was agreed in 1954. The important point is that Peru had thereby
accepted a practical solution ta an immediate fisheries problem, nat agreed
4 7
upon a permanent international maritime boundary for all purposes 0 •
4.44 Second, the parallel was used on occasion for certain non-fisheries purposes
in the unilateral practice of Chile and Peru. But that does nat at all imply
acceptance of the line as an international maritime boundary. The context in
which the fisheries line was used for certain non-fisheries purposes needs ta
heborne in mind. The non-fisheries uses were all non-exploitative uses of the
seas: no question of foregoing rights ta resources arase from the location of
theline usedfor such purposes. There was already a linefor policing fisheries,
which was operating satisfactorily. And it is natural that decisions should he
taken that would not provoke a confrontation with neighbouring States: using
the same line was the least contentious option.
4.45 Third, the examples that Chile adduces from the years after 1986 must he seen
in the light of the Bakula Memorandum 40• That Memorandum precluded any
possibility that Chile could have considered that applications of the fisheries
policing line could he regarded as evidence of the existence of an agreed
international maritime boundary.
4.46 Fourth, even in this post-1954 period there is not a single international or
domestic legal instrument that stipulates that there is an agreed international
maritime boundary hetween Peru and Chile.
Supreme Resolution No. 23 of 12 January 1955, the Pernvian 200-Mile Maritime Zone. PM,
Annex 9. Cf., CCM, para 4.30.
See PM, para 4.132. Ambassador Bâkula's presentation is further addressed in paras. 4.47-
4.52. 206
B. THE1986 BÂKULAMEM:ORANDU PER::uINvITESCHILE TO AGREE AN
INTERNATIONAL l\.1AR.ITIME BOUNDARY
4.47 While the fisheries policing arrangements had proved broadly serviceable,
Peru has since the mid-1980s been asking Chile ta negotiate and agree ta an
international maritime boundary between the two States. The visit ta Chile
by Ambassador Bakula in 1986 is the clearest indication of Peru's position;
and it was an indication given directly and explicitly ta Chile. In the midst
of the tentative and equivocal evidence adduced by Chile the 1986 Bakula
Memorandum stands out as an explicit, unequivocal, written assertion,
uncontradicted by Chile at the time, that no international maritime boundary
between Peru and Chile had been agreed.
4.48 The Bllicula Memorandum is crystal-clear in its significance. It says:
"One of the cases that merits immediate attention is the
formal and definitive delimitation of the marine SPlces, which
complement the geographical vicinity of Peru and Chile and
have served as scenario of a long and fruitful joint action.
At the current time, the {Xistenceof a special zone - established
by the 'Agreementrelatingto a:MaritimeFrontier Zone'- referred
to the line of the parallelhe point reached by the land oorder,
must be considered as a formula which, although it fulfilled
and fulfils the express objective of avoiding incidents with
'seafarers with scant knowledge of navigation', is not adequate
to satisfy the requirements of safety nor for the better attention
to the administration of marine resources, with the aggravating
circumstance that an extensive interpretation could generate a
notorious situation of inequity and risk, to the detriment of the
legitimate interests ofru, that would come forth as seriously
damaged.
The definition of new maritime spaces, as a consequence of the
approval of the [1982United Nations] Convention on the Law of
the Sea, which counted with the vote of Peru and Chile, and the 2[Jl
incorporation of its principles into the domestic legislation of
countries, adds a degree of urgency, as both States shaH have ta
define the characteristics of their territorial sea, the contiguous
zone and the {Xclusiveeconomic zone, as well as the continental
platfonn, i.e.,the soil and subsoil of the sea, also up ta 200 miles,
including the reference ta the delimitation of the said spaces at
internationallevel.
The current '200-milemaritime zone' - as defined at the :Meeting
of the Permanent Commission for the South Pacifie in 1954
- is, without cbubt, a space which is different from any of the
abovementioned orres in respect of which cbmestic legislation
is practically non-existent as regards international delimitation.
The one {Xception might he, in the case of Peru, the Petroleum
Law (No. 11780 of 12 :MaTch1952), which established as an
external limit for the exercise of the competence of the State
over the continental shelf 'animaginary line drawn seaward at a
constant distance of 200 miles'. This Iaw is in force and it should
he noted that it was issued five months prior to the Declaration
of Santiago.'>100
4.49 Thatstatementis perfectly clear. Almost a quarter of acentury ago Peru spelled
out, in a bilateral communication addressed directly to Chile, the needfor "the
fonnal and definitive delimitation" of their marine spaces. It distinguished, as
ithad done during the preceding period, hetween "the formal and definitive
delimitation of the marine spaces" of the two States and, on the other hand,
ad hoc arrangements for specifie purposes, such as the 1954 fisheries policing
tolerance zone.
4.50 Chile's response is to say that "... when Peru first proposed to Chile, in 1986,
to renegotiate the existing 'maritime demarcation', Peru did so on the (wrong)
See Diplomatie Memorandum annexed to Note 5-4-M/147 of23 May 1986, from the Embassy of
Peru to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofChile. PM, Annex 76. 208
assumption that the maritime zones newly recognized in UNCLOS called for
the existing delimitation ta be revisited -llat on the basis that there was no
agreed maritime boundary in place"410and that "[in 1986] Peru acknowledged
that there was a boundary in place, which Peru wished ta renegotiate."411
4.51 As is evident from the text of the Bakula Memorandum quoted above, Chile' s
account of the events of 1986 is inaccurate. Peru did no! acknowledge that
there was a boundary in place: it called for negotiations (nat 'renegotiations ')
on "the fonnal and definitive delimitation" of the maritime boundary. Indeed,
the active participation of Peru (represented by, among athers, Ambassador
Bakula) in the extendednegotiations at UNCLOS III on maritime delimitation
would have been an inexplicable waste of negotiating capital and effort had
this nat been the case411•Peru didnot assume in the Bakula Memorandum that
the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea required this action: it pointed
out that the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea gave added urgency to
the solution of an existing problem. And Chile did no! respond to the Bakula
Memorandum by saying that there was no need for a fonnal and definitive
delimitation because there was already such a boundary in existence: Chile
said that"studies on this matter shaH be carried out"41J.
4.52 Nothing in the Bakula Memorandum, or in Chile's reaction to il, suggested
thatPeru accepted that there was already in existence in 1986 a definitive and
permanent maritime boundary for all purposes. On the contrar)" it was the
very purpose of the Bakula Memorandum to invite Chile tojoin innegotiations
with a view to reaching agreement on such a boundary.
CCM, para. 1.24 (footnote omitted).
'" CCM, para. 1.39.
See para. 19 above.
OfficialCommuniqué of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, published in the Chilean
Journal El Mercurio of 13 June 1986. PM, Annex 109. 209
C. THEPERMANEN Cm,fl..lISSICORTIIESourn PACIFIe (CPPS):
THE JURISDICTION OF TIIE STATE DoFS NOT PREsUPPOSE DELIMIJED l\.1AR.ITIMEZONES
4.53 Chapter III of Chile's Counter-Memorial contains a Section entitled
"Acknowledgement of the Delimited :Maritime Zones within the context of
the Permanent Commission of the South Pacifie (CPPS)"414.In that Section,
Chile tries ta demonstrate that the three participating States in the 1952
Declaration of Santiago have "consistently taken the position that they have
separate maritime zones, and that those zones are delimited by parallels of
latitude Th"s4as~ertion, based exclusively on assumptions, is incorrect.
4.54 In referringta the context of the negotiation history of the 1955 Protocol
of Accession ta the Declaration on ":Maritime Zone" of Santiago 416,Chile is
forced ta admit that this instrument "does nat explicitly address any maritime-
delimitationissues."417It has to be noted, however, that this assertion suggests
that the Protocolcould have addressed such "maritime-delimitation issues"
implicitly, even if the text of this instrument provides no hint whatsoever of
doing any such thing418.
4.55 Chile purports to find the reasons for which the States omitted any reference
to maritime delimitation issues to be of "special interest in this case"m, by
claiming that:"[t]he positions taken by Chile and Peru on Article IV of the
Santiago Declaration during the preparation and then the negotiation of the
text of the Accession Protocol confinn their understanding that Article IV
CCM, Chapter III, Section 5, paras 3.120-3.137.
'"
CCM, para 3.120.
This Proto col was adopted on 6 October 1955 and never ratified.
CCM, para 3.121.
See Protocol of Accession to the Declaration on "Maritime Zone" of Santiago. PM, Annex 52.
CCM, para 3.121. 210
of the Santiago Declaration had fully delimited the maritime zones of the
original tbree States parties."410
4.56 According ta Chile, point IV of the Declaration of Santiago was excluded
from the Proto col of Accession because it "was deemed ta he inoperative sa
far as possible new parties were concemed"411 and "a paragraph noting that
each acceding State had the right ta detennine bath the seaward extension and
the manner of the delimitation of its own maritime zone in accordance with
411
itsparticular circumstances" was included instead • The grounds for Chile' s
interpretation of the reasons nat ta include point IV of the Declaration of
Santiago in theProtocol of Accessionlay in thefifth paragraph of theProtocol,
which Chile quotes as a footnote 4lJ•As may be seen, the fifthparagraph of the
Protocol refers ta geographic and biological characteristics of the maritime
zones, but does not mention the existence of any maritime boundary:
"Paragraph VI of the Declaration of Santiago is not matter of
accession, due to the fact that it is detennined by the geographic
and biological similarity of the coastal maritime zones of the
signatory countries. Therefore, it shall not be considered to have
a general nature for all Latin American countries."1l4
It is impossible to see how could paragraph fifth of the Protocol of Accession
demonstrate that "Article IV of the Santiago Declaration had fully delimited
the maritime zones of the original three States parties."
CCM, para. 3.122.
CCM, para 3.123.
Ibid.
CCM, footnote 698.
Protocol of Accession to the Declaration on "MaritimeZone" of Santiago, signed on 6 October
1955. PM, Annex 52. 211
4.57 The paragraph which, according ta Chile, was included "instead" of point IV
of the Declaration of Santiago is the fourth paragraph. It reads as follows:
"The tbreeGovemments declarethat theadhesion ta theprinciple
stating that the coastal States have the right and dyt ta protect,
conserve and use the resources of the sea along their coasts,
shaH nat he constrained by the assertion of the right of every
State ta detennine the extension and boundaries of its :Maritime
Zone. Therefore, at the moment of accession, every State shall
heable to detennine the extension and form cf delimitation cf ifs
respective zone whether opposite to one part or to the entirety cf
itscoastline, according ta thepeculiar geographic conditions, the
extension of each sea and the geological and biological factors
that condition the existence, conservation and development of
the maritime fauna and flora in its waters."m
This paragraph clearly refers to the right to each State to set the extension of
its maritime zone out to the sea and to determine its outer limit by applying
the method the State deems convenient for that end.
4.58 Chile then refers to a document by Peru that it altematively designates as a
"note"416or "Memorandum"417, but that was, in fact, a non-paper that bears
no signature and contains nothing other than a number of talking points with
Ecuadorean authorities 418. The Counter-Memorial cites the following part in
which the talking points indicate that Peru:
Ibid. (Emphasis added).
CCM, para 3.124.
CCM, footnote 700.
SeeMemorandum of23 June 1955 from the Pernvian Embassy in Ecuador to the Government of
Ecuador CCM, Annex 70. 212
"... iinclined ta delete p:rragraphs IV and VI, which establish
the frontier between the countries - inapplicable in ather
locations - and the intention of signing agreements that are also
fundamentally connected ta the situation of neighbourship of
our countries.'>110
What can he clearly understood from this is that Peru's "acknowledgement"
refers ta the fact that the provision contained in point IV of the Declaration
of Santiago which refers ta the parallel of latitude is only applicable ta the
situation between Peru and Ecuador, due ta presence of islands in the vicinity
of their landfrontier4:xJ. Obviously, no such situation exists between Chile and
Peru.
4.59 In the context of the history of the negotiation of the Protocol of Accession,
and in order ta leave no doubts regarding the supposed Peru's and Chile's
"acknowledgement" of point IV of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago, it is
appropriate to refer to the Official Letter of Il July 1955, by which thePeruvian
chargé d'affaires to Chile informed the Peruvian :Minister of Foreign Affairs
that:
"The Chilean Government thinks it is not convenient to
expressly reserve paragraph 4 of said Declaration, which in fact
only apphes the delimitation between the maritime zones of the
signatories to the case of islands.'>1Jl
This document is self-explanatory: the understanding between Peru and Chile
conceming point IV of the Declaration of Santiago was that this provision is
Ibid. (Spanish text:" .. se inclina a suprimir los pârrafos IV y VI, que establecen la frontera entre
los paises - inaplicable en otros lugares - y el prop6sito de suscribir convenios de aplicaci6n
que también estân fundamentalmente relacionados con la situaci6n de vecindad de nuestros
paises.").
See PM, para 4.77.
Official LeUer No. 5-4-Y/68 of 11July 1955 from the chargéd'affaires ai. ofPeru to the Peruvian
Minister of Foreign Affairs. PR, Annex 8. 213
only applicable ta the maritime zones of the islands. As has been pointed out,
it is nat applicable ta Peru and Chile.
4.60 Notwithstanding this, Chile contends that the text of "key agreements"4Jl
reflects a cornillon understanding among the CPPS member States that their
maritime zones had already been delimited.
4.61 Chile says that "[t]he CPPS Member States ... have on many occasions
acknowledged the importance of the Santiago Declaration, and reiterated
their commitment ta co-operate in the protection and conservation of marine
resources and the marine environment, as well as in the fields of science and
technology."4JJ Peru fully agrees with this statement but it has no bearing on
maritime delimitation matters.
4.62 The Counter-Memorial cites five agreements adopted within the CPPS
framework that establish regulations applicable ta themember State'smaritime
zones. However, none of these instruments make any mention whatsoever to
J4
the subjectof lateral maritime boundaries or to a parallel of latitud•4
4.63 Chile correctly notes that the CPPS State Members "indicated their
understanding that each of them has its own maritime zone within which it is
to take measures to implement and enforce the agreed rules on those subject
matters" N4Jvertheless, according to Chile, the texts of the agreements
entered into under the auspices of the CPPS "reflects a shared understanding
CCM, para 3.120.
CCM, para 3.127.
CCM, paras. 3.129-3.132. The first ofthe instrument cited in the Counter-Memorial (Convention
on Measures on the Surveillance and Control ofthe Maritime Zones ofthe Signatory Countries)
has not been ratified by Chile.
CCM, para 3.127. 214
by the State Parties and the CPPS that those States' maritime zones had
already been delimited."Œ
4.64 This inference is ungrounded. The fact that an agreement is ta be applied
within the maritime zones of the State Parties does nat mean - as Chile asserts
- that the maritime zones have already been delimited. If Chile's inference
were true, it would result in the position that countries that have nat entered
into a treaty for the establishment of maritime boundaries are nat meant ta
have maritime zones because these have nat been delimited. This is purely
circular reasoning.
4.65 Chile also argues that "[s]ome of [the] texts, adopted in the name of the CPPS
rather than those of its member States, again indicate the organization's
understanding that each member State is ta exercise exclusive jurisdiction
within a defined maritime area. None of the member States has disputed this
understanding."4J7 This is mere question-begging, as Peru explained above.
4.66 Chile refers to sorne resolutions adopted within the framework of the CPPS,
none of which mentions lateral maritime boundaries between the member
States. Nevertheless, Chile infers with no grounds that the references to
maritime zones of the member States in those texts constitute recognition of
the existence of maritime boundaries between Peru and Chile.
In the same way, Chile makes recourse to sorne recommendations from the
Secretary-General of the CPPS on legislative and economic measures to
be taken by each of member States in relation to the protection of marine
resources, which, again, contain no mention to maritime boundaries between
the member States. It is worth noting that, in accordance with the CPPS
CCM, para. 3.128.
CCM, para. 3.133. 215
regulations, the competence of the Secretary-General in relation ta the
agreements, protocols, declarations, resolutions and ather CPPS instruments
is circumscribed ta watch over their application. The Secretary-General has
no competence whatsoever on the interpretation of those instruments 4J•
4.67 Finally, Chile quotes a statement made by :MI. Emique Garcia Sayan in
his capacity as the Secretary-General of the CPPS, ta demonstrate that he
"recognized that, under the Santiago Declaration, each of the States parties
possessed a separate maritime zone, rather than sharing a condominium in the
maritime area along their coasts"4l>l.
4.68 Peru has nat, however, asserted any such thing as the existence of a
condominium over the seas adjacent ta the CPPS member States. What Peru
has noted is that, for certain purposes relating ta the protection of species, it
has been agreed that the CPPS - andnot each of the participant States to the
Declaration - would serve as the competent authority over the maritime zone
referred to by the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. This is reflected in Figure
R-4.1 which reproduces a map published by the CPPS when its headquarters
were in Chile. That is the case, e.g., of the Regulation of Pennits for the
Exploitation of the Resources of the South Pacific 440 quoted by Chile, and
the Regulations for :Maritime Hunting Operations in the Waters of the South
44
Pacific ! •
Article 19 of the Statute on the Competences and Structure of the Pennanent Commission
for the South Pacific. Available at: <http://www.cpps-int.org/plandeaccion/enero%202009/
libro%20convenios.pdf> accessed 8 October 2010. In this regard, see Fax F-330 of 27 January
2000, from the President of the Peruvian Section of the Permanent Commission for the South
Pacific (CPPS) to the Secretary-Generaof such Organization. PR, Annex 74.
CCM, para 3.137.
CCM, para. 3.130. See also Regulation ofPennitsfor the Exploitation of the Resources of the
South Pacific, signed on 16 September 1955. CCM, Annex 5.
See Regulations for Maritime Hunting Operations in the Waters ofthe South Pacific, signed on
18 August 1952. PM, Annex 49. 216
This does nat contradict the existence of jurisdictional maritime zones under
the authority of each State, as confinned by quotations from :MI. Garcia
Sayan wherein he states that "each country has its own maritime zone in
front of its coasùine"441. Peru's position is that Peru and Chile have each
their own maritime domain, and that the maritime domains of both countries
have ta he delimited by means of a treaty, in accordance ta intemationallaw.
Chile has nat only misinterpreted Peru's position: in Section 5 of Chapter III
of its Counter-Memorial Chile does nat point ta any agreement on lateral
boundaries.
IV. Third·Party Cartographie Material
44J
4.69 Many maps have been put before the Court ;and several show a parallel
between Peru and Chile. It is suggested that the Court should draw the
inference that map-makers around the world have recognized the parallel as
the boundary. The reality is entirely different. The great majority of the maps
derive from a single source, slavishly copied.
4.70 The various examples cited by Chile in support of its proposition that the
parallel was recognized as the international maritime boundary are based on
a single, erroneous, analysis by the Office of the Geographer of the United
States Department of State 44• In its 1979 publication Limits in the SeasSeries:
No. 8644 (~IS # 86), the Geographer misrepresents point IV of the Declaration
of Santiago in the following manner:
Cited in CCM, para. 2.100.
CCM, paras. 2.228ff, 3.14if
444 The United States (Department ofState), The United States of America(DepartmofDefence),
People's Republic of China, certain publicists and certain United Nations publications. CCM,
paras. 2.22if
Office of the Geographer of the United States Department of State, Limits in the &Jas, No 86:
Maritime Boundary: Chile-Peru, July 1979, p. 2. CCM, Annex 216. 217
LA COMISION PERMANENTE DEL PAclFICO SUR
(RedInternacional dei Libro, Santiago de Chile, 1993, p. 33)
"Thi, publicW"Srequested ,., d directed by the
Perm"netCommi« ion for the South Pac;ft( (CPPSl,
Yllhile it had ilsheadquarter<in Chile Irom 1990-1993"
(lnslde Cover Panel),
Cllll,eEtuadllflISl:rib~B"
~"llrK l.6nUaR,Oc"DI~It
ellJendSIscbmniayjlrmliccilin
IlClossobrtIftilOI•I• dyacent1a
ln cestse200mUi.n
1965 - 1919
SilllpiilUIalinoam.IOcI_
proc:lalltIOlIIetOlls2l1lire
mltlas arin.as
pnerailllMacioM Utnidas
tonvoc1COCIlue$nI,ael
D!r~ dtM a,r1iniçia81!7.
JUNIO 1972
'1JellcrKdeSantDomillgO":
uclolltClrilleastlentft
lOberanÎZIINdemarallyKenle,
hastaIls200millas.
JUNIO 1972
"Stmll\aolglOllIalesEslados
.fJ~nos slDbreeleiMa(,
Yluad,Clmmin ~,Ii mfro
I1IjtiepO'Jleslde20Gmilin.
RmlOO lleConstdoMinistrse
laOI'9JllÏlatid6tnIlUnlud,trlana
Addl.s\beu,ElloICIIUnllO
Zw EŒn6mE iCml IS. i
5EPTIEMBRE 1973
'tonIe IlAtlims:ll~la,_
Eslado$~AllneadoonottIZou
EtODlÎmialclulle2011illa.s
1982
CannDCdÎ.6'ITerceaOQItttnc:b
som tlllereMlMatelei;luada
enMonIIgby,JallliÎIICG/pOI8
1i~lm atntsIlIa29CmIillas.
Figure R-4.1 219
"In Article IV the maritime boundaries between the states are
proclaimed ta he the 'parallel of latitude drawn from the point
of which the land frontier between the two countries reaches
the sea."'!46
4.71 As has been shawn above, point IV of the Santiago Declaration does no such
thing. Point IV isconcerned with the maritime zones around island territories,
and contains no provision fixing maritime boundaries off the mainland 44•
4.72 Moreover, the Limits in the Seas pamphlet contains a distinctive numerical
(perhaps typographical) errar. In the "Analysis" section of LIS # 86, the
Geographer briefly mentions the confusion concerning the starting point of
the purported maritime boundary, referred ta as being "... located slightly
ta the north of the land boundary terminus." The Geographer then goes on
ta state that "[t]he maritime boundary extends along the 18°23'03" parallel
of South latitude, which coincides with the parallel of latitude on which the
Peru-Chile land boundary marker No. 1 has been placed." (Emphasis added)
This factual statement is also incorrect. What the Geographer meant to refer
to was the 18°21'03" S parallel of South latitude. Using the latitude stated in
LIS # 86, the Chile-Peru maritime boundary would have emanated from a
point on the Chilean coast two nautical miles south of the boundary marker,
midway between the Rio Lluta and Boundary Marker (Hito) No. 1.
4.73 That erroneous reference to the 18°23'03" parallel of South latitude can be
traced through almost all of the maps that purport to show the "maritime
boundary" between Peru and Chile following that parallel. Subsequent maps
repeat the same error. There is no great body of third-party recognition of the
446 Office of the Geographer of the United States DepartmenofState, Limits in the Seas, No 86:
Maritime Boundary: Chile-Peru, July1979, p. 2. CCM, Annex 216.
447 See paras. 3.68-3.99 above. 220
boundary: there is simply a certain number of maps mechanically copied from
the 1979 Geographer map, errars and all.
4.74 One may recall the words of the Island ofPalmas award:
"Any maps which do nat precisely indicate the political
distribution of territories, and in p:rrticular the Island of Palmas
(or :Miangas) clearly marked as such, must berejectedforthwith,
unless they contribute -supposing that they are accurate- ta the
location of geographical names. Moreover, indications of such
a nature are only of value when there is reason tthink that the
cartographer has nat merely referred ta already existing maps
-as seems very often ta he the case- but that he has based his
decision on information carefully collected for the purpose."148
v. Chile's Practice Evidencing
the Absence of an Agreed Maritime Boundary
4.75 The Chilean Counter-Memorial also presents a highly selective treatment of
Chile's own conduct with respect to its argument that the 1952 Declaration of
Santiago established a maritime boundary between the Parties. Significantly,
Chile ignores much of its own practice relating to the Declaration, which
is incompatible with such a proposition, as well as its intemallegislation,
which does not give rise to any Chilean entitlements in the sea north of
Point Concordia and does not support the existence of a delimited maritime
boundary with Peru dating from 1952.
4.76 In addition, Chile fails to address the fact that when it genuinely intended
to enter into a final and binding maritime boundary agreement - as with
448 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands , United States), Award, 4 April 1928, RIAA, Vol. II, p. 852. 221
Argentina in 1984 - it did sa in a clear and detailed delimitation agreement
(with an attached map and confinned by a corresponding supreme decree),
unlike its practice with respect ta Peru. Moreover, Chilepasses over in silence
the fact thatfor over forty years after the Declaration of Santiago, it issuedno
map purporting ta depict an existing boundary with Peru extending out ta sea
until it abruptly changed its maps in a self-serving manner in the 1990s.
4.77 These aspects of Chile's conduct further undennine its thesis that the
Declaration of Santiago delimited a maritime boundary between the Parties.
Each of them will he discussed in turn below.
A. THE DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO COULD NOT HAVE DEu:M::rTED A MARITIME
BOUNDARY ALONG TIIE PARALLEL OF RITa No. 1 IN ANY EVENT
4.78 As noted in Chapter III, prior ta 1952 Chile's maritime zones were limited ta
449
those set out in Article 593 of the Chilean Civil Code •Article 593 provided
for a three-mile territorial sea in the "adjacent sea ... measured from the low
water mark"m. Under that law (as would he expected), maritime areas had
to he "adjacent" to Chile's coast in order for them to he deemed to constitute
Chilean territorial waters.
4.79 When the Declaration of Santiago was adopted in 1952, it provided for a
200-mile zone in addition to the more limited zones set out in Chile's Civil
Code. However, under point II of the Declaration of Santiago, the Parties'
proclamation of exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea "along the
coasts of their respective countries" to a minimum distance of 200 nautical
miles from those coasts, presupposed that such areas had to lie adjacent
See paras. 3.23-3.24 above.
Chilean Civil Code of 1855.PM, Annex 25 (emphasis added). 222
ta ("along") their coasts"m. Under bath the Chilean Civil Code and the
Declaration of Santiago, therefore, Chile only possessed a legal entitlement
tamaritime areas tathe extent they lay "adjacent" ta, or "along", its coast.
4.80 In Chapter II, Peru showed that Chile's coast enclsat Point Concordia pursuant
ta the1929 Treaty of Lima. North of that point lies Peruvian territory. Given
that the parallel of latitude passing tbrough Boundary Marker (Hito) No. 1
intersects the coastat a point situated north of Point Concordia, the maritime
areas lying off the stretch of coast between Point Concordia and the point
where the parallel of latitude passing through Hito No. 1 meets the sea are
adjacent ta Peru's coast, nat ta that of Chile. Such areas cannat, therefore,
fonn part of Chile' s territorial sea under Article 593 of its Civil Code;naf can
they he considered ta lie "along" Chile's coast so as to form part of Chile's
200-mile zone proclaimed in the Declaration of Santiago. It follows that such
areas could not have been delimited by the Declaration of Santiago along
the parallelof latitude passing through Bito No. 1 because such a line would
have delimited exclusively Peruvian waters. This can be seen by reference to
Figure R-4.2.
4.81 That figure shows the land boundary between theParties as delimited pursuant
to the 1929 Treaty of Lima and the 1930 work of the Joint Commission. The
boundary reaches the coast at Point Concordia where the lO-kilometre radius
arcdrawn from the bridge over the river Lluta meets the sea. Chile's maritime
boundary claim along the parallel of latitude passing through Bito No. 1 is
also depicted on the figure. That parallel meets the sea at a point on the coast
which lies north of Point Concordia and thus within Peruvian territory.
"' 1952 Declaration of Santiago. PM, Annex 47.LE'S MARITIME BOUNDARY
UM DELIMITS EXCLUSIVELY
PERUVIAN WATERS
(Ploon Gf<Jrth)
MD>1om: WGS-!II
I><.,,~. ,_ .,
.......
= "
.-
E R u
________________________ ;:;:::::~1
c H 1 L E 225
4.82 By positing a maritime boundary that follows the parallel of latitude passing
tbrough Bita No. 1, Chile nat only daims maritime areas that are adjacent ta
Peru's coast (nat ta its own coast), it also deprives a stretch ofPeru's coast of
any maritime entitlements whatsoever. Quite apart from the fact that Chile's
thesis cannat he reconciled with a State's rights ta the maritime areas lying
off its coasts under internationallaw, such a result was never contemplated
in the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. Nor could it have arisen under the 1954
Agreement on a Special Zone or the 1968-1969light towers arrangements. In
short, there is nothing ta suggest that the Parties ta the present proceedings ever
intended ta establish a maritime boundary which commenced along a stretch
of coast that was exclusively part ofPeru's territory, or which deprived Peru' s
coast of its legal entitlements to the maritime areas lying off that coast.
4.83 This situation did not change when Chile enacted new maritime legislation
in 1986 Π. Chile's 1986 law amended Article 593 of the Civil Code, and
added a new article 596 providing for a 12-mile territorial sea, a 24-mile
contiguous zone and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone in the "adjacent
sea ... measured from [Chile's] baselines". Chile's baselines, which in the
relevant area are "normal" baselines constituted by the low-water mark of
its coast, cannot extend north of Point Concordia under the 1929 Treaty of
Lima.
4.84 It was only in 2()()()that Chile purported to change its baselines. As noted in
Peru's Memorial, on 21 September 2000 Chile deposited a list of co-ordinates
Œ
for its baselines, together with a chart, with the United Nations .According
to that list, Chile identified the co-ordinates of Point 1 of its Normal Baselines
as the following: 18°21 '00" S 70°22'40" W WGS84 :54.These co-ordinates
Law No. 18.565 of 13 October 1986 Amendment to the Civil Code Regarding Maritime Spaces.
PM, Annex 36.
PM, para 2.21.
List of Geographical Co-ordinates Deposited by Chile with the Secretary-Geneofthe United
Nations on 21 September 2000. PM, Annex 110. 226
are remarkable in three respects, which can 1Jeseen by reference ta Figure R4.3
hereto. First, they do nat lie on the low-water mark of the coast, but rather
sorne distance inland. Second, they are situated ta thenorth of Point Concordia
and thus within Peruvian territory in accordance with the 1929 Treaty of Lima.
Third, they do nat coincide with the co-ordinates of Boundary Marker No. 1,
and thus they contradict Chile' S own thesis that Hito No. 1 is the seaward
terminus of the land boundary. Given that neither the baselines naf the chart
bore any relation ta reality, including ta what the Parties agreed in 1929-1930,
Peru promptly protested by a Note addressed ta the Secretary-General of the
United Nations on 9 January 200 1m.
4.85 What is clear is that there are no sea areas lying adjacent ta the stretch of
coast where the parallel of latitude passing tbrough Boundary Marker No. 1
intersects the coast that can he deemed to fonn part of Chile's maritime areas
or he subject to a previously delimited boundary with Peru.
B. THE 1964 CHILEAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS LEGAL ADVISOR
REPORT No. 138: THE PREsUMPTION OF A NON-AGREED MARITIME BOUNDARY
4.86 In 1964, the Advisory Office of the Chilean :Ministry of Foreign Affairs was
requested by the Chilean Borders Directorate to provide an opinion regarding
the delimitation of the frontier hetween the Chilean and Peruvian territorial
seas Π.The fact that the Advisory Office of the Foreign Ministry was asked to
examine the question of maritime boundaries in itself shows that the Chilean
Government was not at all sure at the time whether there was a pre-existing
boundary.
Note No. 7-1-56/005 of9 January 2001, from the Permanent Mission ofPeru to the Secretary
General of the United Nations. Statement by the Govemment of Pern Conceming ParaUel
18°21'00",eferred to by the Govemment ofChile as the Maritime Boundary between Chile and
Pern. PM, Annex 78.
Report No. 138 of 15 September 1964 issued by the Head of the Legal Advisory Office of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Raill Bazan Davila, upon request ofthe Borders Directorate.
PR, Annex 21. 227
CHILE'S ERRONEOUS POINT 1
ON ITS 2000 BASELINE
(Plottedon GoogIe Earth)
Point 1 on Chlle'snorm~1b~sellnes:
lo~cteon dryI~ndln Peru's terrltory
parallel of lapasslng
througHlto No. 1
PERU
Terminus of the land bound ary
~coordl ogChlle
CH ILE
FigureR-4.3 229
4.87 In order ta give its opinion, the Advisory Office indicated that it was first
necessary ta investigate whether there was a "specifie agreement" between
the two countries concerning their maritime frontier. The Advisory Office
then examined the tenns of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago as ta which it
stated that, "although it does nat constitute an express agreement ta detennine
the laterallimit of the respective territorial seas, it starts by assuming that this
limit coincides with the parallel that passes tbrough the point at which the
land frontier reaches the sea.''4~7
4.88 The Advisory Office sought ta justify its opinion by referring ta point IV of
the Declaration of Santiago. As has been shawn in the previous chapter, point
IV in no way established a maritime boundary between Peru and Chile m .
Moreover, the fact that the Advisory Office recognized that there was no
"express agreement" on delimitation sits uncomfortably with Chile' s confident
assertion in these proceedings that the Declaration of Santiago effectuated a
"comprehensive and complete boundary between the Parties."4:5>l
4.89 Equally inconsistent with Chile's current position is the Advisory Office's
frank acknowledgement that it could not say where the alleged maritime
boundary agreement derived from. In the words of the Opinion:
"This Advisory Office has not been able to establish, with
the available Œckground, when and how this agreement
was reached However, it may, in fact, be presumed that
this agreement predates and determines the signing of the
Declaration on the :Maritime Zone of 18August 1952.'>100
Ibid., (Spanish text: "aunque no constituye un pacto expreso para detenninar el deslinde lateral
de los respectivosres territoriales, parte dei entendido de que ese deslinde coincide con el
paralelo que pasa por el punto en que lafrontera terrestre toca el mar.").
See paras. 3.82-3.99 above.
CCM, para. 1.9.
460 Report No. 138 of 15 September 1964 issued by the Head of the Legal Advisory Office of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, Raill Bazân Davila, upon request ofthe Borders Directorate.
(Spanioh text: "Cuândo y c6mo se pact6 tal acuerdo, no ha logrado establecerlo esta Asesoria
con los antecedentes disponibles. Cabe, si, presumir que élprecede y condiciona la firma de la
Declaraci6n sobre ZonaMaritimade 18 de Agosto de 1952."). (Emphasis addPR, Annex 21. 230
4.90 This statement is remarkable on two accounts. First,theAdvisory Office could
nat establish when and how a delimitation agreement with Peru came about.
Such an admission scarcely supports the proposition that there was a clear legal
instrument reflecting the Parties' intention ta agree an issue as important as
the delimitation of their maritime boundaries. Second, the Opinion presumed
that any such agreement must have pre-dated the Declaration of Santiago and
did nat arise out of the Declaration itself. As shawn earlier, there is no such
agreement. Certainly, the Parties' separate 1947 daims couldnot he construed
as constituting a delimitation agreement, and Chile does nat argue as much.
Indeed, the notion that a maritime boundary agreement was in existence prior
ta 1952 is fundamentally at odds with Chile's position set out in its Counter
Memorial, where it is asserted that it was the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
that established the maritime boundary, not any prior agreement461.
C. CIllLE'S LEGISLATION SUBSEQUENT TO TIIE DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO
4.91 Chile's Counter-Memorial ignores the fact that none of Chile's legislation
enacted after 1952 filed by the Parties makes any reference to the Declaration
of Santiago having delimited a maritime boundary between them.
4.92 Chilean law related to jurisdiction of the Chilean maritime authority in
the north of the country does not mention any maritime boundary with
Peru. Decree No. 292 of 1953, adopted after the Declaration of Santiago,
defined the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Maritime Territory and
Merchant :Marine without any reference to the existence of lateral maritime
boundaries 46. Chile' s 1987 Supreme Decree (M) No. 991 stipulated that the
CCM, para.1.3.
Decree with Force of Law No. 292 of25 July 1953, Fundamental Law of the Directorate General
of Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine. PM, Annex 29. 231
jurisdiction of the Maritime Govemor's Office of Arica includes the area
"from the Chile-Peru international politicallimit on the North as far as the
parallel19°13'OO" S. (Punta Camarones) ta the south"46J. While a parallel is
used ta separate the Arica district from the Iquique district in the south, there
is no reference ta a parallel or a maritime boundary in the north of Chile.
The same decree does, however, refer expressly ta the "maritime boundary"
with Argentina, when establishing the jurisdiction of the Captainey of Port of
464
Punta Delgada •From this account, it is clear that when the decree mentions
the "international political boundary on the North", it refers ta the land border
with Peru. Nothing here asserts the existence of an international maritime
boundary along the parallel46~.
4.93 In 1959, for example, Chile' s Ministry of Agriculture issued Decree No. 130
conceming the regulation of pennits for foreign fishing vessels operating
within Chilean territorial waters (which, at the time, still had a breadth of
Supreme Decree (M) No. 991 of26 October 1987, Establishing the Jurisdiction of the Maritime
Gobernations of the Republic and Establishing the Harbour Authorities and their Respective
Jurisdictions.M, Annex 37.
. , The jurisdiction of the Captaincy of Port of Punta Delgada, that operates within the jurisdiction
of the Maritime Governors Office of Punta Arenas, "comprises the Magellan Strait from the
imaginary line that unites Punta Harry and Cabo San Vicente, up to the international maritime
boundary to the East." Chile's Supreme Decree (M) No. 991 of26 October 1987,Establishing the
Jurisdiction of the Maritime Gobernations of the Republic ofChile andEstablishing the Harbour
Captaincies and their Respective JurisdictiPR,.Annex 24.
Similarly, there is no referenceatever to a lateral maritime boundary, or to a parallel of
latitude, in Pern's law on the maritime anthority's jurisdiction in the south of the country. Peru's
Regulation of Captaincies and of National Merchant Navy approved by Supreme Decree No. 21
of 31 October 1951 (PR, Annex 2) stated that the jurisdiction ofthe Captaincy ofthe Major Port
of 110"shall include the coastline, from Punta Yerba Buena in the North, to Concordia (10 km,
North ofthe Arica-La Paz Central Railway) in the South". The 1987 Regulation on Captaincies
and Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities stipulated that jurisdiction of the Major
Port ofllo covers "the Departmental Limit between Arequipa and Moquegua to the North up to
the frontier with Chile to the South" (CCM, Annex 174); and the Regulation of the Law on the
Control and Surveillance of Maritime, Fluvial and Lacustrine Activities of 2001, establishes the
jurisdiction ofthe Captaincy ofthe Port ofIlo in exactly the same terms. (CCM, Annex 192). 232
tbree miles)400. While that decree authorized the Ministry of Agriculture ta
grant pennits ta foreign vessels ta fish in Chile's territorial waters, it made
no reference ta the Declaration of Santiago or ta the existence of a previously
agreed maritime boundary with Peru. Ta the contraI)" no laterallimits at all
were identified with respect ta Chile' s territorial waters.
4.94 This was followed by a further Decree (No. 332) issued by Chile on 4 June
1963, which granted ta the Ministry of Agriculture the authority ta issuefishing
pennits ta foreign flag vessels within Chile's "200-mile zone established by
the Declaration on :Maritime Zone of 18 August 1952"467.Despite the fact that
the decree did refer ta the Declaration of Santiago, it made no reference ta
that instrument having established any laterallimits ta Chile's 200-mile zone
with Peru.
4.95 On 18 July 1963, Chile issued another Decree (No. 453) relating to the
468
licensing of fishing factory ships within its 200-mile zone •Once again, the
decree referred to the Declaration of Santiago in general tenns, but it did not
indicate that the Declaration had delimited any maritime boundary with Peru
within which pennits could be granted.
4.96 Notwithstanding these inconsistencies, Chile' s Counter-Memorial argues that
its understanding of the maritime boundary with Peru was made known to
mariners through the issuance of official Sailing Directions (Derroteras de la
Costa). In support of this proposition, Chile points to an edition of the Chilean
Sailing Directions published in 1980 which states that the maritime boundary
was the parallel of Bita No. ]400.
Decree No. 130 of 11 February 1959: Regulation on Pennits for Fishing by Foreign Vessels in
Chilean Territorial Waters. CCM, Annex 117.
Decree No. 332 of 4 June 1963, Appointment ofthe Authority \\hich Grants Fiohing Permits to
Foreign Flag Vessels in Chilean Jurisdictional Waters. PM, Annex 31.
Decree No. 453 of 18 July 1963, Regulation ofPermits for the Exploitation by Factory Ships in
the Specified Zones. PM, Annex 32.
CCM, para 3.68 and SHOA, Derrotero de laCosta de Chile, Vol. 1:From Aricato Chacao Canal,
6thed., 1980. CCM, Annex 133. 233
4.97 It was only 28 years after the signature of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
that the Chilean Sailing Directions were changed ta suggest that there was a
maritime boundary lying along the parallel of Boundary Marker No. 1. No
explanation was given as ta the genesis of this "boundary", and no reference
was made ta the Declaration of Santiago.
4.98 The 1980 edition of the Sailing Directions was also intemally inconsistent.
Under the heading "International Boundary", the Directions referred once
again ta the land boundary established by the 1929 Treaty, and ta the fact that
the starting-point of that boundary lay at Point Concordia on the coast. The
reference ta the maritime boundary being the parallel of Boundary :Marker
No. 1 appears under a different heading entitled "Hito Concordia". What the
Sailing Directions fail ta explain is how a maritime boundary could have as
its starting-point a place on the coast north of Point Concordia - the starting
point of the land boundary - in Peruvian territory.
4.99 Itis impossibleto argue after theBakulaMemorandum that thepracticeof Chile
and Peru could imply agreement upon the existence of a maritime boundary.
Nonetheless, Chile attempts to support its case by reference to its post-Balcula
practice. For example, Chile quotes its Decree No. 408 of 1986, which refers
to "the parallel which constitutes the northem maritime boundary"470. That
phrase did not appear in the decree's immediate predecessor, Decree No. 94
Chile's Decree No. 408 of 17 December 1986, on the Prohibition of Use ofFishing Equipment
for Dragging and Fencing in the Indicated Area and Repealing the Specified Decree, CCM
para 3.61 and CCM, Annex 134. Cf., Chile's Supreme Decree (M) No. 991 of26 October 1987,
Establishing the Jurisdiction of the Maritime Gobernations of the Republic and Establishing the
Harbour Authorities and their Respective Jurisdictions, referred to in CCM, para 3.63; Chile's
Supreme Decree No. 453 of3 May 1989 Creating the Fourth Naval Zone, referred to in CCM,
para 3.62; Chile's Law No. 18,892 (as amended), General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture,
consolidated text published in Decree No. 430 of 21 January 1992, referred to in CCM, para
3.66. 234
of 1985, whichreferredsimply ta "18°28'16" S.L", describedas a "geographic
point"471.The Bakula Memorandum, in which Peru drew Chile's attention ta
the absence of any agreed maritime boundar y471,was delivered shortly after
the 1985 decree and before the 1986 one.
4.100 Chile itself underlines the importance of distinguishing between different
kinds of boundary line. It refers ta the lack of protest from Peru concerning
Chile's 1987 Decree No. 991 referring ta the "international politicallimit"
between the two States. Nevertheless, while the 1987 decree refers ta the
Treaty establishing the maritime boundary with Argentina and ta the map
attached ta that treaty, it makes no reference ta a maritime boundary with
47J
Peru or ta the Declaration of Santiago •Chile argues that "[i]t would have
been obvions ta Peru that 'international political boundary' meant something
different from a physical or geographical boundary"474.
4.101 No-one could reasonably have thought that the tenn "international political
boundary" meant a physical boundary: but just as Peru should have seen (and
did see) the difference between legal and physical boundaries, it is necessary
to see the difference between permanent all-purpose international maritime
boundaries and boundaries adopted for limited purposes and/or for limited
times. In fact, Chile's Decree No. 991 was adopted soon after the Bakula
m
Memorandum in which Peru hadmade quite clear its view that there was no
agreed international maritime boundary with Chile, and Chile had undertaken
to examine the question. A protest was unnecessary and not to be expected.
Chile's Decree No. 94 of 11 April 1985, On the Prohibition of the Use ofTrawland Fence
Fiohing Gears in the Indicated Areas and Abolishing the DecrItIndicates. PR Annex 23.
See paras. 4.47-4.52 above.
Chile's SupremeDecree (M) No. 991 of26 October 1987, Establishing the Jurisdiction of the
Maritime Gobernations of the Republic of Chile and Establishing the Harbour Captaincies and
their Respective Jurisdictions. PR, Annex 24.
CCM, para. 3.63.
See paras. 4.47-4.52 above. 235
4.102 Even when sorne of Chile's more recent decrees began ta indicate a
jurisdictionallimit in the north along a parallel of latitude, they did nat state
that such a parallel was the result of any specifie boundary agreement with
Peru. In contras t,when it came ta the southem bruits of Chile's jurisdiction,
the 1984 boundary treaty between Chile and Argentina was often expressly
mentioned.
4.103 An example of this rather striking difference in treatment may he found in
Chile's Decree No. 704 of 29 October 1990 relating ta the organization of the
476
Chilean Navy's search and rescue operations •While the Chilean Counter
Memorial has elected nat ta translate the relevant passage, Article 1 (1) of the
decree set out below illustrates the point:
"1.The :MaritimeArea ofnational responsibility, for thepurposes
of this regulation, includes all the waters under national maritime
jurisdiction and those of the Pacific Ocean laying between the
former and the parallel 18°20'08" South to the North, meridian
12er West to the West, Antarctic Territory to the South, and the
waters of the Drake Passage, including all the waters located
West of the Line that joins together points A, B, C, D, E and F
of Chart No. 1 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the
Argentine Republic, enacted by Supreme Decree CMinistry of
Foreign Affairs) No. 401 of 1985, and the waters South of the
p:rrallel58°21'1" South that are West of the meridian 53°00'00"
West up to the Antarctic territory."
Chile's Decree No. 704 of 29 October 1990, Amending Decree (M) No. 1.190 of 1976 that
Organises the Maritime Search and Rescue Service ofChile's Navy. (Spanish text: "1.El Area
Maritima de responsabilidad nacional, para los efectos dei presente reglamento, comprende
todas las aguas bajo jurisdicci6n maritimanacional,y las dei Océano Pacifico, comprendidas
entre aquellas y el paralelo 18°20'08" Surpor el Norte, meridiano 120° Weste (sic) por el Weste
(sic),erritorio Antârtico por el Sur y las aguas dei Paso Drake, comprendiendo todas las
aguas que quedan al Weste (sic) de la Linea que une los puntos A,B, C, D, E YF de la Carta
No. 1 dei Tratado de Paz y Amistad con la Repiiblica de Argentina, promulgado por Decreto
Supremo (RR.EE.), No. 401, de 1985, y las aguas que, quedando al sur dei paralelo 58°21'1"Sur,
se encuentren al Weste (sic) dei meridiano 53°00'00" Weste (sic) y hasta elTerritorio Antârtico.").
PR Annex 26. 236
4.104 As can be seen, the northern liruit of the area ta which the decree apphes
is recorded as being the parallel 18°20'08" without any indication of the
provenance of that line. In the south, however, the article refers explicitly ta
the map attached ta the 1984 Chile-Argentina boundary agreement (including
the chart attached ta that agreement), and ta the specifie tuming points of the
boundary line depicted on that chart as the liruits of the decree' s application.
4.105 The 1990 decree also refers ta the fact that 1985 Chilean Supreme Decree
No. 401 had expressly enacted the Chile-Argentine boundary agreement into
77
lavt •Significantly, no reference is made ta Chile's 1954 supreme decree
(promulgating the Declaration of Santiago) having provided for a boundary
line with Peru. Had Chile considered that the Declaration of Santiago
established a final and binding maritime boundary with Peru, there would
have been no reason not to refer to this fact in the 1990 decree.
4.106 The Chilean Counter-Memorial also seeks to find support in a General Law
on Fisheries and Aquaculture promulgated in 1991, which Chile contends
"acknowledges thenorthem bmit of Chile's maritime zone"m. The instrument
in question only referred generally to "the northem boundary of the Republic"
without giving any indication of what that "northem boundary" was. In
contras t, the southem limit of the area to which the law applied was clearly
indicated by a parallel of latitude having specifie co-ordinates (41°28.6' S).
In this respect, the 1991law is no more helpful to Chile's case than another
law that it refers to (Supreme Decree No. 453 of 3 :May 1989) creating a
Fourth Naval Zone for the operations of the Chilean Navy. Once again,
Chile's Decree No. 401 of6 May 1985, Promulgating the Treaty ofPeace and Friendship between
the Govemment of the Republic ofChile and the Govemment of the Republic of Argentina PR,
Annex 22.
CCM, para. 3.66. 237
that instrument only refers ta the jurisdiction of the Navy extending ta "the
northern international boundary" without any further precision on the origin
or location of that boundary470.
D. CHILE'S CONDUCT WITI! REsPECT TO TIIE CH:rLE-ARGENTINA
BOUNDARY AGREEMENT
4.107 This review of Chile's post-1952 practice shows that Chile's conduct
is incompatible with its argument that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
established a maritime boundary between the Parties. As will he seen in this
section, Chile's practice with respect toArgentina was entirelydifferent. There,
unlike the situation between Peru and Chile, clear evidence exists showing
the intention of the parties ta delimit and map their maritime boundary in a
final and binding manner.
4.108 Chile's Counter-Memorial asserts that "all land- and maritime-boundary
questions which have concemed Chile have been resolved either by agreed
recourse ta arbitration or direcdy by international treaties."480The impression
Chile seeks to convey by this statement is that the maritime delimitation
with Peru has been resolved in the same manner as its only other maritime
delimitation dispute - the boundary between Chile and Argentina.
4.109 Any such impression is entirely false. The evidence shows that when Chile
genuinely intended to enter into a final and binding maritime boundary
agreement, it did so by means of a detailed delimitation agreement specifying
CCM, para 3.62 and Annex 136 thereto. See Chile's Supreme Decree No. 991 of26 October
1987, referred to at CCM para. 3.63, establishing the maritime jurisdiction for the governship of
Arica, which also refers to the "Chile-Pern international politicallimit on the North" without any
further precision. PM, Annex 37.
CCM, para 1.59. 238
the course of the boundary with identified co-ordinates (including its starting
and end points), and including a map showing the course of the boundary. This
is what occurred when Chile agreed its maritime boundary with Argentina in
1984. Nothing of the kind ever occurred with respect ta a maritime boundary
between Chile and Peru.
4.110 As discussedin Peru's Memorial, on 29 November 1984, Chile and Argentina
concluded a treaty that established the maritime boundary between them 481•
That agreement fixed the course of the boundary by means of a series of six
co-ordinates connected by loxodromes. The agreement went on ta define a
specifie endpoint of the boundary out ta sea, and the Parties annexed a map ta
the agreement illustrating the boundary. That map was stipulated ta fonn an
integral part of the Treaty 481.The Treaty then provided (in Article 14) that the
Parties gave mutual recognition ta each other's baselines. And it concluded
by stating:
"The boundaries indicated in this Treaty shaH constitute a
final and irrevocable confine between the sovereignties of the
Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile.
The Parties undertake not to present daims or interpretations
which are incompatible with the provisions of this Treaty."
Spanish text reads as foHows:
"Los limites sefialados en este Tratado constituyen un confin
definitivo e inconmovible entre las soberanias de la Reptiblica
Argentina y de la Reptiblica de Chile.
PM, paras. 5.6-5.7. See also Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina, 29
November 1984. Available at: <http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201399/
volume-1399-I-23392-English.pdf> accessed 8 October 2010.
See Article 17 of the Treaty and PM, Figure 5.1 at p. 175 thereto, where the Treaty map is
reproduced. 239
Las Partes se comprometen a no presentar reivindicaciones ni
interpretaciones que sean incoillPltibles con 10 establecido en
este Tratado."
4.111 The Treaty with the map was then promptly enacted into Chilean law by
means of SupremeDecree No. 401, and the agreement was registered with the
United Nations by both parties on 17 June 1985.
4.112 Neither the Declaration of Santiago naf the Agreement on a Special Zone
bears any resemblance ta the delimitation treaty concluded between Chile
and Argentina. Neither instrument stated that it was a boundary agreement;
neither defined a boundary line in tenns of co-ordinates, starting-points and
endpoints; neither saidanything about baselines; neither had any map attached
ta it illustrating a boundary; and neither indicated that there were boundary
lilles that constituted definitiveand unmovable boundaries. Unlike the Chile-
Argentina Agreement, which was registered with the United Nations the
year after it was concluded, the Declaration of Santiago was only registered
with the United Nations 24 years after its signature, in 1976 483•The 1954
Agreement on a Special Zone was not registered until 2004, sorne 50 years
after its conclusion and well after Peru had requestednegotiations conceming
the Parties' maritime delimitation. Even then, Chile' s registration of the 1954
Agreement on a Special Zone was done unilaterally and without notice to the
other Parties to the agreement, contrary to the procedures of the Permanent
Commission for the South Pacific 484•Once again, this shows that Chile did
not comport itself in a manner consistent with the prior existence of an agreed
maritime boundary with Peru.
1952 Declaration of Santiago. PM, Annex 47.
484 PM, para 4.114 and the Agreement Relating to a Special Maritime Frontier Zone, PM, Annex
50. 240
4.113 In 1986 - shortly after the Parties registered the Chile-Argentine Treaty
with the United Nations - Chile issued a revised nautical chart covering
the area off Tierra del Fuego (No. 1300) in order ta illustrate the course
of the delimitation line on the chart m . In contrast, Chile's nautical charts
relating ta the area in the vicinity of the land boundary with Peru continued
ta show no maritime boundary until 1994, 42 years after the conclusion of
the Declaration of Santiago. Moreover, as noted in Chapter III, in 1997 when
Chile notified its ratification of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea
ta the United Nations, Chile issued a statement specifically referring ta its
maritime boundary agreement with Argentina, but made no similar mention
486
of any maritime boundary with Peru •
4.114 Once again, all of this is passed over in silence in Chile's Counter-Memorial.
Yet the facts are clear, and they provide a compelling indication that Chile
did not consider that either the 1952 Declaration of Santiago or the 1954
Agreement on a Special Zone had established a maritime boundary between
the Parties.
E. THE ABSENCE OF A l\.1AR.ITIMEBOUNDARY ON CHILE'S l\1APs
4.115 Peru's Memorial pointed out that for over 40 years after the 1952 Declaration
of Santiago was signed, Chile never issued a single official map indicating
that a maritime boundary existed between the Parti es487.No map depicting
a boundary was published after the 1947 Proclamation; no map showing
a boundary appeared after the 1952 Declaration of Santiago or the 1954
See PM, Figure 5.22 at page 187.
See para. 3.124 above.
487 PM, paras. 5.11-5.32. 241
Agreement on a Special Zone; and no map was prepared illustrating the
course of a boundary following the conclusion of the 1968-1969 light tower
arrangements.
4.116 Chile has undoubtedly scoured its files ta find an official map depicting a
maritime boundary with Peru in response ta Peru's Memorial. It has been
unsuccessful. Ail that Chile is able ta furnish is a figure in Volume VI of its
Counter-Memorial (Figure 8) illustrating what it labels as the "seaward extent
of maritime zones of Chile and Peru at the time of the Santiago Declaration".
However, this is a manufactured graphie generated by Chile solely for
purposes of this case. Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, Chile
issued no map showing a dividing line along a parallel of latitude.
4.117 As Peru has demonstrated, official nautical charts issued by Chile in 1966,
1973, 1979 and 1989 all were conspicuous in failing to depict any maritime
boundary with P eru488.Indeed, to the extent that Peru has heen able to locate
any Chilean map showing sorne kind ofboundary extending out to sea during
this period, there is only a 1980 Physical and Touristic Map published by an
entity called DIRCATEC, which is reproduced as Figure R-4.4. It shows
a boundary line extending a short distance out to sea in a direction roughly
perpendicular to the general direction of the coast similar to the equidistance
line. Itay he noted that the same kind of perpendicular line is also depicted
on a map issued by the Institute Geographie National of France in 2007 prior
to the institution of these proceedings, reproduced as Figure R_4.5. 480
488 See Figure R-2.13 in Vol. III to this Reply, and PM, Figures 5.19 (p. 183),5.20 (p. 185) and
5.23 (p. 189).
489 The area in dispute also appears on a map prepared by the Flanders Marine Institute published
in 2009. Available at: <http://www.vliz.be/vmdcdata/marbound> accessed 8 October 2010.
(FigureR-4.6 in Vol. III). 242
4.118 Moreover, the large-scale charts issued by Chile for the Arica area in 1966,
1973 and 1989 also depicted the land boundary extending past Boundary
Marker No. 1 in a southwest direction along the boundary arc up ta the point
where the 1O-kilometre arc reached the sea, as agreed by the Parties in the 1929
Treaty of Lima and the 1930 Identical Instructions ta the joint Commission.
As discussed in Chapter II, these maps completely undennine Chile's daim
that Boundary :Marker No. 1 is the terminus of the land boundary490.
4.119 It was only in 1992, sorne six years after Peru had indicated in diplomatie
correspondence that it was appropriate for the Parties ta address the question
of concluding a fonnal and definitive delimitation of their maritime spaces,
that Chile began ta show the parallel of latitude as a kind ofboundary on sorne
of its maps. Even then, Chile's position was ambiguous and inconsistent. The
first such map showing a line drawn along the parallel was a map produced
401
by the Chilean Hydrographie Office in 1992 •It was a very small-scale map
purporting to illustrate Chile's claim to a "Presential Sea" (A1ar Presencial).
There is a thin red line extending seawards between Peru and Chile on that
map, but its purpose is not explained on the map.
4.120 As for Chile's nautical charts, they only started to change in 1994, when
a dotted line began to appear offshore between Peru and Chile on nautical
Chart 1()()()40No explanation was given as to the provenance of this line in
thelegend to the chart, or why Chile felt it necessary to change its maps. The
scale of the chart was also too small to be able to make out the course of the
land boundary in the area where it meets the sea.
See paras. 2.60-2.61 above.
. , PM, para 5.25 and PM, Figure 7.3 (p. 113) to Vol. IV thereto.
-tl2 PM, Figure 5.24 at p. 191. 243
F.alco..... ,... ICO PHYSICAL AND TOURISTIC
MAP OF CHILE: 1980
18°
•
, ,
3
\ 1TR~.""",,
'~ '
v
Figure R-4.4 245
AMÉRIQUE DU SUD: 2007
(Published by: Institut GeographiquNationalde France)
....
....
Figure R-4.5 247
4.121 Chile further amended its charts in 1998 when it issued a new, and larger
scale, chart (No. 1111) covering the Port of Arica area4QJ.This chart nat
only purported ta show a maritime boundary extending along a parallel of
latitude, it changed the course of the land boundary from what had hitherto
been depicted on earlier Chilean charts. Instead of following the lO-kilometre
radius arc up ta the coast, the 1998 chart erased the part of the land boundary
that Chile had previously drawn along the arc between Hito No. 1 and the
coast. In ather words, Chile recognized that it could only justify its maritime
boundary daim by altering the land boundary provided for in the 1929 Treaty
of Lima that had been previously depicted on its own maps and charts. For
ease of reference, Chile's 1998 Chart is reproduced here as Figure R-4.7. It
494
was fonnally protested by Peru • When Chile thereafter deposited charts
with the United Nations in 2000 referring to the parallel 18°21 POO" as the
maritime boundary hetween Peru and Chile, Peru also promptly registered its
objeetio .n4o~
4.122 Even then, Chile's mapping praetiee eontinued to he ineonsistent. In 2003, for
example, Chile's Hydrographie Service published a catalogue of its nautieal
eharts together with a map showing their eoverage. The map in question
appears in Figure R-4.8. In the south, the 1984 maritime boundary with
Argentina is clearly shown by means of a dashed line. In the north, however,
there is no similar boundary line extending seaward of the Peru-Chile land
boundary.
PM, Figure 5.25 at p. 81 to Vol. IV thereto.
-tl4Note RE (GAB) No. 6-4/113 of20 October 2000, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofPeru
to the Embassy ofChile. PM, Annex 77.
See Note No. 7-1-SG/005 of 9 January 2001, from the Pennanent Mission of Peru to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations. Statement by the Government of Peru concerning
paralleI18"21'00", referred to by the Government of Chile as the maritime boundary between
Chile andPeru. PM, Annex 78, and PM, Figure 2.6 (p. 19) in Vol. IV thereto. 248
4.123 Despite the fact that these developments were canvassed in Peru's Memorial,
Chile's Counter-Memorial has chosen nat ta address them. Chile offers no
explanation as ta why it issuedno maps for over40years showing the existence
of a maritime boundary withPeru ifthat boundary had been delimitedin 1952.
Nor does Chile explain why it unilaterally decided ta amend its maps in the
1990s (after Peru hadproposed boundary negotiations) ta show a purported
boundary, or why it feltcompelled in 1998 ta change the course of the land
boundary in a manner that was at odds with theprovisions of the 1929 Treaty
of Lima.
4.124 These are further examples of Chile's tendency ta ignore elements of its own
conduct that are incompatible with its case. Chile's conduct in this respect
is highly revealing. The evidence discussed above shows that Chile did nat
act in a way consistent with the daim advanced in its Counter-Memorial that
there is an agreed maritime boundary with Peru dating from the signature of
the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. Nor did Chile at any time prior to 1998
purport to show the land boundary either stopping at Boundary :Marker No. 1
or continuing past that point along a parallel of latitude. In short, Chile's map
evidence attests to the fact that Chile did not consider that it had a delimited
maritime boundary with Peru. It was only in recent years that Chile began to
alter its cartography in a self-serving way in an effort to manufacture a case
that a maritime boundary alIeady existed. ,_'11
-
-
-',-,",,-!JI- ,
'l', "~,i ~,~ _.;"~~,~,t;,!,~ ~
, .. ~~~
-, ,k,-'\
1/ ' " ''
,/ 1 '
. ,
/ J /
1 i
i
!
'1 /
l' ! '\
" i
"
~
;
1;
'. ~ j
,
1
--~
III \ /['
"
" i / (
N
-o
al R
al
..
,
.'
: ,,- ,
~,.,:-.3 ,
" ," 1
C·' ",
.-' ",
.-' ,
-, , , 251
CHILE'S HYDROGRAPHIC SERVICE
CATALOGUE: 2003
NAVEGACOSTERA
--C~--------------=--'":·,u (Available ataccessed August 2010)
? ~------ -- --- -- --r
L
.......
;
•.....
URUGUAY
• •
••
1~.t(Fall..ond 1'_1
60' -W
,
,
·
"
r
1
Note yhhltinade1
".
Figure R-4.8 253
VI. Peru's Maps
4.125 Unlike Chile, which avoideddiscussing its ownmaps in its Counter-Memorial,
Peru's Memorial addressed the official cartography of both Parties 496•There,
it was noted that Peru has nat published any official map depicting a maritime
7
boundary between itself and Chile4° • Ta illustrate the point, Peru produced
a number of maps published by the Military Geographie Institute of Peru in
the 1950s and 1960s which showedno maritime boundary408,as weil as amap
published by the :Ministry of Defenee and the National Geographie Institute
in the 1989 Atlas of Feru, which also depicted no maritime boundary .400
4.126 Chile's Counter-Memorial does nat dispute the fact that there are no official
Peruvian maps indicating a pre-existing maritime boundary between the
Parties. Instead, Chile asserts that there are numerous depictions of the
southem boundary of Peru's maritime zone published by "private entities"
(mosdy for secondary schools) which received the authorization of Peru's
:Ministry of Foreign Affair s:500.
4.127 Relying on these privately prepared maps, Chile cites the Court's Judgment
in the Frontier Dispute case for the proposition that such maps can be said to
represent "a physical expression of the will of the State", and thus to constitute
a recognition on Peru's part of the existence of a maritime boundary:501.
PM, paras. 5.10-5.32.
PM, para 5.10.
PM, Vol. IV, Figures 5.3 (p. 37), 5.4 (p. 39) and 5.5 (p. 41).
PM, Vol. IV, Figure 5.6 (p. 43).
CCM, para 3.144. and Vol. VI, Figures 43-63.
CCM, para 4.43, citingFrantier Dispute, Judgment, lC.J. Reports1986, pp. 582-583, paras. 53,
56. 254
Chile also refers ta the Commission' s Awardin the Eritrea-Ethiopia boundary
case ta support the contention that such maps represent admissions against
interest by Peru - i.e., "when the State adversely affected has itself produced
and disseminated it, even against its own interest"501.
4.128 These arguments miss the mark. In the first place, of the twenty-six school
texts that Chile annexes ta its Counter-Memorial, only five include the
"authorization" of the Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and four of those
five were published by the same author:50J.The captions on these maps show
the author's graphical interpretation of Peru's 1947 supreme decree, nat any
international boundary agreed under the 1952 Declaration of Santiago. In
contras t,as shawn on Figure 38-1 in Chile's Counter-Memorial, the author
set out the specifie boundary instruments which had established Peru's land
boundaries with Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia and Chile shown on the
map. These were the "international boundaries" to which the approval of
Peru's Foreign Ministry related.
4.129 Moreover, in referring to a number of privately prepared maps that have
received the Foreign :Ministry's "authorization" under Supreme Decree No.
570 of 1957~0 Ch4le overlooks the fact that Peruvian Ministerial Resolution
No. 458 issued shortly thereafter (on 28 April 1961) expressly stipulates that
any such authorization -
"... mes not imply, in any way, the approval of concepts and
commentaries relating to the historie and cartographie material,
which are of exclusive responsibility of thauthors.":50~
CCM, para 4.43, citing the Decision regarding de/imitation of the border between Eritrea and
Ethiopia, Award, 13 April 2002, RIAA, Vol. XXV, p. 116, para 3.28.
Figures 37-40 in Vol. VI to CCM.
504 Pern's Supreme Decree No. 570 of5 July 1957. PM, Ann11.
Pern's Ministerial Resolution No. 458 of28 April 1961,Issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
ofPeru. PR, Annex 9. 255
4.130 Themaps referred ta by Chilecannot, therefore, hedeemed ta representofficial
maps issued by Peru, or ta reflect the Government's position as ta the accuracy
of what they depict. As the Ministerial Resolution notes, elements produced
by private authors remain the exclusive responsibility of the author.
4.131 It follows that Chile's assertion that privately published maps represent "a
physical expression of the will of the State" is completely misplaced. Chile
fails ta point out that the Court, in the Frontier Dispute case, carefully
qualified what it said about maps that could he said ta faH into this category.
The relevant passage from the Court's Judgment, which Chile omits ta cite,
reads as follows:
"This isthe case, for example, when maps are annexed ta an
official text of whichthey form an integral part. Except in this
clearly defined case, maps are only extrinsic evidence of varying
reliability or unreliability which may be used, along with other
evidence of a circumstantial kind, to establish or reconstitute the
real facts."506
4.132 As has been seen, the Parties did not annex to the official text of the 1952
Declaration of Santiago (or the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone) any map
which fonned an integral part of those agreements. Thus, there are no such
maps that could be said to reflect the "physical expressions of the will of
the State or States concemed". In contrast, as has also been shown, Chile
and Argentina did annex such a map to their boundary agreement, and that
map was stated to fonn an integral part of the agreement. In that instance,
there clearly exists a map evidencing the expression of the will of the Parties.
Nothing of the kind exists as between Chile and Peru.
506 Frontier Dispute, Judgmentle.J. Reports1986, p. 582, para 54. 256
4.133 Nor can privately issued maps he construed as constituting "admission
against interest" on the part ofPeru. In the passage quoted by Chile from the
Commission's Award in the Eritrea-Ethiopia case, the Commission made it
clear that it was referring ta maps which the State adversely affected "has
itself produced and disseminated":507. Here, there are no maps produced and
disseminated by Peru showing a maritime boundary between the Parties.
4.134 Ta the extent there are any maps which may he said tareflect "admission
against interest" in this case, they are the official charts published by Chile
during the 40 years following the Declaration of Santiago, discussed earlier
in this chapter, all of which showed no maritime boundary.
4.135 Peru's official cartography, in contrast, has remained consistent. This is
evident nat only from the maps produced in Peru' s Memorial, but also by
a number of additional maps published by official sources over the last 40
years. Three examples of this practice may be cited here.
4.136 Figure R-4.9 is a reproduction of a "Political Map of Peru" prepared by the
Peruvian National Institute for Planification in 1970 and published in the
Peruvian Atlas for that year. It does not display any maritime boundary with
Chile. To the contrar)" Peru's maritime domain extends well south of the
terminal point on the land boundary and south of any putative parallel of
latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 :508.
4.137 Figure R-4.14 is a map published by Peru's Ministry of Fisheries in 1973
which depicts Peru's 200-milelimit and the area of the principal concentration
of certain fish species. It, too, extends south of the land boundary with Chile
and does not show a maritime boundary.
CCM, para. 4.43.
A Hydrographie Map published the same year shows the same thing (Figure R-4.10 in Vol. III).
Moreover, there are alsoumerous examples of privately published maps that do not depiet a
boundary, eontrary to the impression Chile seeks to eonvey. See Figures R-4.11, R-4.12 and
R-4.13 in Vol. III. 257
POLITICAL MAP OF PERU: 1970
(Publiby InstNacional de PldePuu)aci6n
...
0
"
~ "
f,C
1
/
-
-....,.._. ..," .........,._
l......'OLITtt"O
-.- , o
--- ,
--
--
.... .-.,
'-
R-4.9 259
MAP PUBLISHED BV PERU'S
MINISTRV OF FISHERIES: 1973
. dlstr ibuciàn
• 98o"râncc
.'
lon" de
concentration
p.-inCÎpal
Figure R-4.14 261
4.138 Figure R-4.15 is another "Political :Map of Peru" prepared by the National
Geographie Institutein 1989. Once again, the depiction of Peru's maritime
zone is shawn in a similar way ta the maps discussed above - i.e., there is no
maritime boundary, and Peru's maritime spaces extend considerably ta the
south of the land boundary terminus along the coast:5(Xl.
4.139 :Maps prepared by private Peruvian authors for scholarly warks also depict
Peru's maritime entitlements extending south of the parallel relied on by
Chile. For example, a map included in a book published in 1977 by Guillermo
Faura Gaig~ and reproduced in a 1979 book authored by Professar Eduardo
Ferrero Costa~ lho,s both a perpendicular line extending from the land
boundary, as well as the equidistance, or median, Iille between Peru and Chile
(Figure R-4.17).
4.140 In short, it is Chile, notPeru, thathas tried ta change the cartographie depiction
of the relevant area lying off the coasts of the Parties, by belatedly amending
its official charts in the90s to depict a maritime boundary where none
existed before and to alter the course of the land boundary where it meets the
sea. Such a self-serving practice cannot possibly support Chile's thesis that a
maritime boundary between the Parties has been in existence since 1952.
See also the "Hydrographie Map" published in the 1989 Peruvian NationalAtlas, Figure R-4.16
in Vol. III.
Faura Gaig, Guillers.:El Mar Peruany sus limites, Lima, Amauta, 1977.
,u Ferrero Costa, Eduardo, op. cit. See also Figure R-4.18 in Vol. III. 262
vu. Conclusions
4.141 Chile has devoted a good deal of space ta the presentation of material
that shows that the 1954 fisheries policing line was implemented by both
States and was used on occasion for other purposes. It has produced no
evidence whatsoever ta show that the fisheries policing line was based
upon an international maritime boundary agreed in 1952. It has offered
no explanation for its response ta Peru's 1986 invitation ta negotiate an
international maritime boundary, in which Chile said that "studies on this
matter shall be carried out". Nor has it explained how it is that a supposedly
"agreed" international boundary can he detected only tbrough the carrying
out of "studies". Chile has failed ta show that the practice of the two States
in the years after the Declaration of Santiago evidences an agreement in
the Declaration of Santiago that the parallel of latitude should be used as an
international maritime boundary between Peru and Chile.
4.142 This chapter has shown that Chile's argument that the subsequent practice
of the Parties after 1952 establishes their agreement that the Declaration
of Santiago had delimited the maritime boundary between the Parties is
completely without merit-
(a) Withrespect to the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone, it was only one of
six fishery-related agreements concludedat that time that were focused
on the defence of the 200-mile claims that had been the subject-matter
of the Declaration of Santiago.
(h) The purpose of the 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone was practical in
nature: it was designed to avoid fishing vessels paody equipped with
navigation instruments inadvertently fishing off the coasts of the other
State, and to avoid incidents at sea, by creating zones of tolerance. It was
not based on the implicit assumption that point IV of the Declaration
of Santiago represented a delimitation of international maritime
boundaries. 263
POLITICAL MAP OF PERU: 1989
(Published By Instituto Geogrilfico Nacional dei Peni)
~ C"A"OR CO L O:1I3 I A
S [ L
c
lXSTITIJJO GEQGRAFICO .'AC IONAl
PERU l'OLlTl CO
c-o * ~....·..."«0'·.""
".~-
"..........
o
Figure R-4.15 265
THE PERUVIAN SEA AND ITS LlMITS
(Faura Galg. GuEl Mllerwy sulimiLima Amauta. 1977)
---- ".."--" 1'"
.'!:'I::.oo~
,..". t l·, "( ·· ·· ~· \)
----- _ .0______~."., "._'
,."",.__H
..",. ~
, ':-',":,:,,,"
o ,
, 0'
,0
,....-",
o ,
'",
" ,,," '"1
,'" _"'0_ _....~M..·.'.
,1 ..~..'.".
,,
•
00__ ,, o
EL MAR PERUANO , <
"~.:~:-- '"0_____ <0 .... •
y SUS LIMITES ,0 ,
L,..,,,...,,,..,..•L 1 "
LIt.. " .L.. . " .... .. ,/ 1
,",,,.. " " ,!,.,... .... J
~••••,,, ,.... 'H.. ,
......."k...'..
,.,.......
LI,N.',.0"'''
.", "orPo,........... u_u..
Vlœ-'-'"""""8Fu "a"
FigureR-4.17 267
(c) Thereis acompleteabsenceof any officialrecordemanatingfrom Chileor
Peru of the establishment of such maritime boundary at the time. While
the post-1954 practice of the Parties, including their arrangements in
1968-1969 ta erect light towers near the boundary, relied on the parallel
for purposes of the policing of fishing ta avoid friction between their
respective fishing communities, this practice did nat and could nat
convert what was a zone of tolerance into a permanent all-purpose
maritime boundary.
(d) The 1986 Bakula Memorandum made it clear thatPeru didnot consider
that there was a pre-existing maritime boundary between the Parties.
That is why Peru invited Chile ta discuss and agree such a boundary.
Chile did nat reject that proposaI, but rather stated that studies on the
matter would he carried out.
(e) Chile's own practice refutes the notion that Chile considered that there
was an established maritime boundary between the Parties. Chile's
internallegislation didnotrefer to the Declaration of Santiago as having
delimited such a boundary. And it is clear in particular that no maritime
boundary was agreed that had, as its starting-point on the coast, a point
located exclusively in Peruvian territory.
if) When Chile genuinely intended to enter into a maritime boundary
agreement - as it did with Argentina in 1984 - it signed an agreement
to that effect setting out the precise course of the boundary, annexed
a map of the boundary line to the agreement, promptly registered the
agreement with the United Nations, immediately published its own
official maps depicting the boundary, and referred to the agreement in
its intemallaws. With respect to the situation between Chile and Peru,
Chile took no such steps. 268
(g) Chile's own official mapping practice confinns the absence of any
maritime boundary with Peru. No maritime boundary began ta appear on
Chilean charts until 1992, forty years after the Declaration of Santiago
and six years after Peru had sent the 1986 Bakula representation.
(h) Contrary ta Chile's cartography, Peru's official mapping practice has
remained consistent in nat depicting a maritime boundary between the
two States.
(i) The third-party cartographicmaterial cited by Chile was for themost part
copied from an earlier publication by the Office of the Geographer of
the United States State Department, which was itself inaccurate; and it
has no probative value as ta the intentions of the Parties ta this case. CHAPTERV
THE DELIMITATION LINE
1. Introduction
5.1 Peru's Memorial devoted a full chapter ta a discussion of the principles
and rules of international law goveming maritime delimitation and their
application ta the facts of thcas~1 n. that pleading, Peru demonstrated
that an equidistance line drawn from the terminal point on the Parties'
land boundary (Point Concordia) out ta a distance of 200 nautical miles is
solidly based on the law of maritime delimitation and produces an equitable
resultwhich reflects the relevant circumstances characterizing the area ta he
delimited between Peru and Chile.
5.2 Peru's position with respect ta theprinciples upon whichmaritime delimitation
should he based has nat emerged for the first time in this case. Throughout
the negotiation of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, Peru expressed
theview that maritime delimitation should be based on tbree basic elements:
First, the need to achieve a result in hannony with equity or equitable
principIes;econd, use of the median or equidistance line as a general method;
Third, adjustment of the equidistance line if there are any relevant or special
512 PM, Chapter VIpp.195-241. 270
circumstances that need ta he taken into account ta ensure that the principle
of equity is respected~lJ.
5.3 Historically, therefore, Peru did nat align itself with either the group of
countries that favoured reference being made ta equidistance in the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea or the group that espoused "equitable
principles". Rather, Peru advanced proposals which sought ta find a middle
ground by taking into account the basic principles referred ta above.
5.4 Peru's position in the past, as well as its position in this case, has remained
consistent. Peru fully respects customary intemationallaw on the issue of
maritime delimitation, and its daim in this case isgrounded in the application
of that law ta the facts.
5.5 Chile has chosen nat ta address in its Counter-Memorial the points set out in
Peru's Memorial. Chile's position rests solely on the erroneous proposition
that the Parties delimited their maritime boundary in the 1952 Declaration of
Santiago.
5.6 In this chapter, Peru will refrain from repeating what it said in its Memorial,
which stands largely umebutted. Rather, Peru will first briefly recall the
reasons why its delimitation position in this case respects the principles
and mIes of international law (Section II). Next, Peru will explain the
fundamental inequitableness of Chile's delimitation daim (Section III). Peru
will also address the few issues that Chile does raise in its Counter-Memorial
concerning the applicable law, and how the delimitation exercise in this case
can be approached (Section IV). The chapter condudes with the conclusions
(Section V).
See para. 19 and footnote 19 above. 271
II. Peru's Position Respects the Principles and
Rules ofInternational Law
5.7 Peru has previously noted that the overriding aim of maritime delimitation
under customary international law is ta achieve an equitable result. This
principle was articulated by the Court as early as the 1969 North Sea cases,
wheretheCourt emphasized that "delimitationmust hethe abject of agreement
between the States concerned, and that such agreement must he arrived at in
accordance with equitable principle sti"also4reflected in Articles 74 and
83 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which emphasize the need
ta reach an equitable solution.
5.8 The basic mIe of maritime delimitation is clear. As the Court has held in
numerous cases, itfinds expression in the "equidis tance/special circums tances"
rule, which is broadly equivalent ta the "equitable principles/relevant
clrcumstances rule"m. The application of this mIe involves a two-step
process: First, the establishment of a provisional equidistance line; Second,
the assessment of the relevant circumstances characterizing the area to be
delimited in order to determine whether they justify any adjustment being
made to the provisional line. In sorne cases where the relevant area can be
readily identified, proportionality (or disproportionalityis applied as an ex
post facto test of the equitableness of the result.
514 North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, lC.J. Re1969, p. 46, para 85.
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatarand Bahrain, Merits, Judgment,
lC.J. Reports 2001p. 111, para 23Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, lCReports
2002, p. 441, para 28Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romv.ia
Ukraine), Judgment of3 Februar2009, p. 37, para 116. 272
5.9 In its most recent decision in a case conceming maritime delimitation - the
Romania- Ukraine case - the Court reaffinned these principles. It is also
reiterated that it would proceed in defined stages, which it noted "have in
recent decades been specified with precision."516 The Court' s Judgment thus
stated the following:
"First, the Court will establish a provisional delimitation
line, using methods that are geometrically objective and also
appropriatefor the geography ofthe area in which thedelimitation
is ta take place."m
In a passage which is particularly opposite ta the present case by virtue of
the fact that the coasts of Peru and Chile are adjacent ta each ather, the Court
added:
"So far as delimitation between adjacent coasts is concerned,
an equidistance Iille will he drawn unless there are compelling
reasons that make this unfeasible in the p:rrticular case"518.
5.10 Peruhas applied theseprinciples to thedelimitation with Chile. In its Memorial,
Peru identified the relevant coasts of the Parties, including the basepoints on
the Parties' baselines which control the course of the equidistance lin~lo.
Peru next described the relevant area within which the delimitation is to be
effected I~tlOn.discussed the starting-point for the delimitation, which is
Point Concordia - the terminal point on the land boundary where it meets the
sea~ .ll
Case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment of 3
February 2009, p. 37, paras. 115 and 116.
Ibid.para 116.
Ibid.
PM, paras. 6.20-6.28.
PM, paras. 6.29-6.31.
PM, paras. 6.32-6.46 and Chapter II ofthis Reply. 273
5.11 Following this, Peru addressed the first step in the delimitation process - the
construction of the provisional equidistance line. As is clear from any map of
the area, the distinguishing characteristic of the Parties' coasts bordering the
relevant area is thatthey change direction at almost the same point where the
terminal point of the land boundary is located. Although they face in different
directions, the relevant coasts of the Parties ta the north and south of the land
boundary are smooth. There are no islands or promontories that distort the
course of the equidistance Iille.
5.12 In these circumstances, the construction of the provisional equidistance line
is a straightforward exercise. The line, together with its control points, is
shawn on Figure R-5.1, which was included as Figure 6.6 (p. 225) ta Peru's
Memorial.
5.13 As for the second stage of the process - consideration of the relevant
clrcumstances - Peru has shown that the principal category of potentially
relevantcircumstances concems the geographic configuration of the area being
delimited. In this case, the coastal geography of the Parties is uncomplicated.
It is also balanced in terms of the length of each Party's relevant coast to the
north and south of the land boundary. There is no disparity in the lengths of
those coasts bordering the relevant area or offshore islands that might justify
a shifting of the equidistance linem .
5.14 Given this situation, and bearing in mind that a coastal bisector method
produces virtually the same result as the application of the equidistance
m
method (as shown by Figure 6.7 to Peru's Memorial ), there is no need
for any adjustment to be made to the provisional equidistance line. In short,
PM, paras. 6.53-6.59.
PM, Figure 6.7 (p. 227) and paras. 6.17 and 6.51. 274
the geographic characteristics of this case present a text book example of a
situation where the application of the equidistance method produces a fair and
equitable re.mIt.
5.15 Peru also applied theproportionality test ta the equidistanclin~1 A4s.Figure
R-5.2 shows, the equidistance line produces a result that fully satisfies the test
of proportionality in sa far as it accords ta each Party maritime areas that are
similar in size and commensurate with the length of their respective coasts.
III. The Inequitableness of Chile's Position
5.16 Chile has refrained from addressing any of these issues in its Counter
Memorial. There is no discussion of the relevant principles of law relating
ta maritime delimitation, no application of these principles ta the geographic
facts of the case, and no demonstration that Chile' s parallel of latitude daim
produces a result that is even colourably equitable.
5.17 The inequitableness of Chile's delimitation line stands out if reference is
made to Figure R-5.3. As can be seen, Chile's line accords to itself a full
200-mile maritime extension projecting from its coast, induding those parts
of the coast lying near the land boundary. Peru, in contrast, suffers a severe
eut-off effect as a result of the concave nature of the Parties' coasts bordering
the delimitation area, and the fact that the parallel of latitude passes right in
front of Peru's coast and thus falls much doser to that coast than to the coast
of Chile~l~.
PM, paras. 6.69-6.75.
PM, paras. 6.61-6.67.In the Romania-Ukraine case, the Court observed thatbothParties had argued
tha the other Party's daim cut off its own maritime entitlements. The Court noted, however, that:
"[b]y contrast, the provisional equidistance line drawn by the Court avoids such a drawback as it
allows the adjacent coasts ofthe Parties to produce their effects, in tenns ofmaritime entitlements,
in a reasonable and mutually balanced way. That being so, the Court sees no reason to adjust the
provisional equidistance line on this." Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black
Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), JudgmentofFebruary 2009, p. 61,para 201. >
-
-1
~ \
-1
u è'!
L- -c-- -i: Lu L---i-; !
u
: 0
~
1-:: ~PROPORTIONALITY TEST APPLIED TO
THE EQUIDISTANCE METHODOLOGY
M...c"f'rOjid;on oArequipa
D:tum:WGS_8 4
ç, ... ",,,,S) ..
, " , '00
• •....t"-' ..... PERU
'00 ,.
• =
<;bmo<..,
Co..oonf.,,,,",.., on ...,"o30' Co,",,"ch"1(0),-, oMoquegua
Pro.pI:1",.,.nM.a .ng,
BOLIV
Pw", Cd. s
PA CIFIC
1
oc N
~ nm ümit of Marit ime Entitlements CH 1LE
.. ,
....
UJ::
--w:-----,tL--
r::L.
-"~,-I-·,,.!- -I-J+--
:0
. -..1
-~~~--t_I-----~- 281
5.18 Not surprisingly, a delimitation line following Chile's parallel of latitude also
produces a result that is grossly disproportionate, as can he seen in Figure
R-5.3. Despite the fact that the Parties' relevant coasts are the same length,
Chile's line results in Chile obtaining maritime areas that are two and one-half
2
times larger than those thatwould appertain ta Peru (118,467 km vs. 46,458
km 2).Such a line cannat possibly he viewed as comporting with equitable
principles or with the aim of achieving an equitable solution.
5.19 It is apparent that Chile has no interestn discussing the equitableness of its
delimitation line. Indeed, Chile doesat dispute thefact that its daim produces
a massive amputation of Peru's maritime entidements. Rather, Chile rests its
case on the contention that there is a previously agreed maritime boundary
extending along the parallelof latitude passing through Boundary Marker No.
1, whatever the effect that parallel has on the legal entitlements of the Parties
to the maritime areas lying off their coasts, and without regard to how far out
to sea that putative boundary extends.
5.20 Chile's Counter-Memorial also advances the extraordinary argument that
Peru has somehow benefited from what Chile characterizes as a "stable
frontier" along the paralleof1atitud This1proposition isas audacious as it
is untrue.
5.21 As discussed earlier in thiseplym, the Parties never contemplated, let alone
agreed, a final and binding delimitation of their maritime zones that would
produce such an open-ended, one-sided and inequitable re.mIt as isproduced
by a lille following the parallel of latitude. How, it might be asked, can a
line that cuts right across Peru' s coast, and accords to Chile more than twice
as much maritime area than to Peru, be claimed to be beneficial to Peru?
CCM, para 2.149.
See Chapter III, Section II and III. 282
By failing ta address the delimitation methodology put forward by Peru,
Chile must he deemed ta have accepted the appropriateness of Peru's
approach in the event that the Court finds, as Peru respectfully submits it
should, that there is no pre-existing boundary between the Parties delimiting
any of their maritime zones.
IV. Issues Concerning the Applicable Law and the
Delimitation of the Parties' Maritime Zones
5.22 Chile does raise one argument in its Counter-Memorial with respect ta Peru' s
delimitation line. While recognizing that Peru is nat a party ta the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Chile appears ta take issue with Peru' s
statement that the principles of delimitation set farth in Articles 74 and 83
of the Convention reflect customary intemationallaw. According ta Chile,
because Peru daims a "maritime dominion" out ta a distance of 200 nautical
miles from its coast (nat a continental shelf or exclusive economic zone),
"Peru cannot rely on UNCLOS Articles 74 and 83 as the legal basis for a
delimitation of its 'maritime dominion' , because this is not a zone that can be
delimited by application of those provisions."m
5.23 This line of argument is wrong and without object. While Peru has referred
to its 200-mile legal entitlements as covering an area over which Peru has a
"maritime domain", this in no way implies that the normal mIes of maritime
delimitation do not apply to such a zone, particularly in the light of the fact
that the 1982 Convention (including Articles 74 and 83) does not form part of
the applicable law in this case.
CCM, para. 1.73. 283
5.24 Peru's maritime entidements were discussed in Peru'sMemorial~ PeOu.
takes pride in the fact that its 1947 Supreme Decree No. 781 establishing a
zone of jurisdiction and sovereignty for the purposes of exploring, exploiting
and conserving the natural resources within 200 nautical miles of its coast
played a key raIe as a precursor ta the subsequent recognition under the
1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary intemationallaw
that a coastal State possesses sovereign rights over the continental shelf and
exclusive economic zone extending out ta the same distance.
5.25 Article 98 of Peru's 1979 Constitution provided that Peru's maritime domain
comprises the sea, seabed and subsoil up ta a distance of 200 nautical miles
measured from its baselines established by law~) Jnder that provision,
Peru exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction in its maritime domain without
prejudice to the freedomof international communications,and pursuant to
laws and treaties ratified by Peru. The same principles are reflected in the
1993 version of Peru' s Constitution which, in Article 54, also recognizes the
freedom of international communications in the airspace above its maritime
domain. Peru is also entitled to 200-nautical-mile continental shelf rights ipso
facto and abinitio~Jl.
5.26 Peru has not enacted a territorial sea per se (unlike Chile which has a 12-mile
territorial sea under its 1legislatio A sS~etlo. II of the Introduction
has explained, althougheru is not a party to the 1982 Convention on the Law
of the Sea, Peru' smaritime domain consecratedin its Constitution, andin other
legislation relating to the exploitation and conservation of theresources within
its200-mile zone,iscompatible with principles set out in the Convention. For
PM, paras. 3.11-3.23.
Political Constitution ofPeru of 1979. PM, Annex 17.
North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, lC.1969, p. 22, para 19 and p. 29, para 39.
m See paras. 20-26 and 3.24 above. 284
example, Peru's General Fishing Law has incorporated important elements
of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea in providing that Peru will
detennine the allowable catch of living resources within its maritime domain,
permit foreign vesselsta fish for the surplus nat being exploited by Peru's
existing fleet, and establish fish management systems, and fishing seasons
and zones, in order ta preserve the living resources ofarea~JJ.
5.27 While elements of the international community may have found Peru's (and
Chile's) original proclamation of 200-mile zones controversial over a half
century aga, over the past tbree decades Peru has exercised its rights within
its200-mile zone in a manner that is consistent with intemationallaw.Peru
has nat received any complaints ta the contrary. Moreover, Chile has never
expressed any reservations about the natureof Peru's maritime domain, at
least prior to the filling of Counter-Memori anl~eJ,4.hile signed a
Free Trade Agreement with Peru in 2006 which expressly recognized Peru' s
sovereigntyand sovereignrights andjurisdiction corresponding to its maritime
domain~J~.
5.28 Given that the same mIes apply to the delimitation of a single maritime
boundary and to a boundary covering several zones of coincidentjurisdictions,
there is no reason why they doot equally apply to the delimitation of Peru' s
maritime domain with each of the various maritime zones adopted by Chile
(Chile's 12-mile territorial sea and 200-mile continental shelf and exclusive
economic zone). In view of the fact that the applicable law in this case is
not the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, but customary international
law, Chile's argument that Peru cannot rely on Articles 74 and 83 of the
Convention is irrelevant.
See Article 47 of Law Decree No. 25977 General Fisheries Law. PR, Annex 11.
See para. 1.34 above.
See paras. 26 and 1.37 above. 285
5.29 Under general international law, the aim of maritime delimitation is ta
achieve an equitable re.mIt by means of the application of well-established
principles and rules that have been consistently applied by the Court and
arbitral tribunals. It follows that the Court can readily delimit the maritime
areas between the Parties based on the principles of delimitation that have
been clearly articulated in its jurisprudence.
5.30 In this connection, the Court has made it clear that the same principles apply
ta the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone
as ta the delimitation of the territorial sea. As the Court stated in the Qatar
Bahrain case, the "equitableprinciples/relevantcircums tances" rule applicable
ta the former situationis"closely interrelated" with the "equidistance/special
Clrcumstances" rule applied ta thelatter I~ he:C ameroon-Nigeria case, the
Court further emphasized that the two rules are "very similar"m. And in the
Romania- Ukraine case, the Court once again reaffirmed the position~J8.
5.31 Notwithstanding this basic rule of maritime delimitation, situations can
exist where it is appropriate when applying the "equidistance/special
circumstances" rule to proceed with delimitation in progressive stages and to
delimit the territorial sea in a manner that is different from the delimitation
of the continental shelf or column of water. This occurred, for exampIe, in
the Guyana-Suriname arbitration. There, the arbitral tribunal found that the
parties had historically regarded aline drawn at variance with the equidis tance
line (a 10° line) as the proper delimitation line for what was originally their
MaritimE Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatarand Bahrain, Merits, Judgment,
lC.J. Reports 2001p. 111, para 231.
m
wnd and Maritime Boundary between Came roon and Nigeria (Came roon v.Nige ria: Equatorial
Guinea intervening), Judgment, lC.J. Rep2002, p. 441, para. 288.
Case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), JudgmEnt of3
February 2009, pp. 37-38, paras. 115-120. 286
3-mile territorial seas. Accepting that this historical factor was a special
circumstance justifying an adjustment ta he made ta the equidistance line, the
tribunal delimited the first tbree miles of the maritime boundary by means of
the 10° line~);l.
5.32 With respect ta the delimitation of the continental shelf and exclusive
economic zone, the tribunal in Guyana-Suriname found that the provisional
equidistance line required no adjustment due ta the presence of any special
or relevant circumstances. However, the tribunal still had ta connect up the
delimitation from the 3-mile bruit of the parties' former territorial seas ta the
point on the I2-mile bruit of their more recently enacted territorial seas where
their continental shelf and exclusive economic zone entitlements commenced.
As can be seen on Figure R-5.4, the tribunal did this by means of a straight
line drawn diagonally along the shortest distance between the two points,
thereby once again departing from strict equidistance:54o.This method was not
materially different from the method that the Court adopted in the Cameroon
Nigeria case to connect up the endpoint of the territorial sea delimitation
previously agreed by the parties under the Maroua Declaration and the start
of the equidistance line which constituted the continental shelf and exclusive
economic zone boundary, as shown on Figure R_5.5:541.
Guyana/Suriname, Award ofthe Arbitral Tribunal, 17 September 2007, paras. 306-307.
Ibid.,para 323.
wnd and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria: Equatorial
Guinea intervening), Judgment,C.J. Reports2002, p. 448, para 307. 287
GUYANA-SURINAME
CONTINENTAL SHELF
BOUNDARY AWARD: 2007
Mercator Prcj ection
WGS-84 Datum
N>u.Mil"
Kilom.tors
PreparmInternational Mapping
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Equidistance Llne
II~'~IYIE
Figure R-5.4 289
NIGERIA
-----+---- ~-~-~-+-- ~-~~~~ -R~Ro ~~,Y'I---
The Maroua Llne
Bi gh t
of
Bonny
Big h t
of
Biafra
~OO'N--------J_--------------------------------_i---------------------------.,~,
GULF
OF
GUINEA
CAMEROON-NIGERIA
ICl JUDGMENT2002 B(EQUAT~IAl
Mercator Projection GUINEA)
WGS-84 Datum
Kilom"..-s
PrebInternationalMapping
Figure R-5.5 291
5.33 It is also possible that the applicable law for the delimitation of the seabed and
subsoil may nat he the same as for the delimitation of the column of water. In
the Denmark-Norway case, for example, the Court was faced with a situation
where the delimitation of the continental shelf was govemed by the 1958
Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf while the delimitation of the
fishery zone was govemed by customary internationallaw. As was noted in
that case, the two Iines could he coincident in location, but they would stem
from different strands of the applicable law:541.
5.34 In the Denmark-Norway case, the Court found that the same methodology
applied in both situations - namely, the establishment of the provisional
equidistance line followed by the subsequent adjustment of that line ta take
into account therelevant circumstances characterizing the area ta hedelimited.
As the Court stated:
"It thus appears that, bath for the continental shelf and for the
fishery zones in this case, it is proper to begin the process of
delimitation by a median line provisionally drawn."54J
5.35 In the present case, Peru has shown that the delimitation of the Parties'
respective maritime zones by means of an equidistance line produces a result
that is in accordance with internationallaw and entirely equitabie. This can
542 Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, lC.J.
Reports 1993, pp. 56-57, paras. 41-42. There are also examples of State practice where EEZ
boundaries differ from continental shelf boundaries. An example is provided by the 1971 and
1997 Agreements between Australiaand Indonesia where, over part of the delimitation, separate
boundary lines for the continental shelf and the EEZ were agreed. See Charney, J. 1. and Smith,
Robert w.: International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. IV, The Hague (etc.): Nijhoff, 2002, pp.
2697-2727.
543 Maritime Delimitation in theArea between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, lC.J. Reports
1993, p. 62, para 53. 292
he tested by examining the course of the equidistance hne over the first
12 miles of the boundary between Peru's maritime domain and Chile's
territorial sea, as well as for the areas lying further seaward out ta a distance
of 200 nautical miles.
v. Conclusions
5.36 In the light of the foregoing, Peru' s position on the maritime delimitation
line between the Parties ta be decided by the Court can he summarized as
follows:
(a) In the light of the fact that Peru is nat a partathe 1982 Convention on
the Law of the Sea, the applicable law ta the maritime delimitation is
eustomary intemationallaw.
(h) The relevant principles and rules of maritime delimitation are expressed
in the "equidistance/special circumstances" or "equitable principlesl
relevant circumstances" rule.
(c) In applying these rules, Peru has first calculated the provisional
equidistance line between the relevant coasts of the Parties. Thereafter,
Peru has shown that there are no relevant circumstances that caUfor the
adjustment of the equidistance line.
(d) UnlikeChile' sparallel oflatitude daim, an equidistance-based boundary
avoids any undue eut-off of the maritime entitlements generated by
the Parties' respective coasts, satisfies the test of proportionality and
achieves an equitable result.
(e) Theequidis tancemethodology apphes equally tothedelimitation between
Peru's maritime domain and Chile's I2-mile territorial sea, and to the 293
delimitation of maritime areas lying further out ta sea between Peru's
maritime domain and Chile's continental shelf and exclusive economic
zone.
if) Therepercussions of the Parties 'delimitation positions withrespect ta the
Peru' s entitlement under intemationallaw ta the "outer triangle" lying
more than 200 nautical miles from Chile's coast, but within 200 miles
of Peru's coast, is addressed in the next chapter. CHAPTERVI
THE OUTER TRIANGLE
1. Introduction
6.1 As an answer ta Chapter VII of Peru's Memorial on "Peru's Maritime
Entidements Off Its Southem Coast - The 'Outer Triangle'''4,Chile devotes
Section 5 of Chapter II of its Counter-Memorialta what it caUs "The Alta
A1arArea Now Claimed by Peru "4.n these limited developments it contents
itself with raising tbree marginal arguments which never neatly face Peru's
main line of reasoning.
6.2 For this reason, it is convenient ta recall that the crucial point here is that,
asall coastal States, Peru has legal entitlements ta a maritime area up ta a
distance of 200 nautical miles "from the baselines from which the breadth
of the territorial sea is measured" under well-establishcustomary rules
now codified in Articles 57 and 76, paragraph 1, of the 1982 Convention
on the Law of the Sea. As shawn in the Memorial 546, in this area, located
within the 200 nautical-mile limit from the Peruvian coasts and beyond 200
nautical miles from Chile's coasts, Peru enjoys exclusive sovereign rights to
544 PM, pp. 243-270.
545 CCM , paras. 2.108-2.134.
545 PM, paras. 7.25-7.38. 296
the extent and within the liruits recognized by the modern law of the se~a4.
Peru's entidements over that area and its resources exclude any daim from
Chile going beyond the traditional freedoms recognized ta all third States by
general intemationallaw, as reflected in the 1982 Convention on the Law of
the Sea. Peru' s daim ta the outer triangle is, therefore, by no means a daim
ta part of the high seas.
6.3 Carefully avoiding ta address these obvions legal facts, Chile puts forward
tbree disparate arguments:
First,Peru's daims are lnconsistent with each ather;
Second, the delimitation along the parallel of latitude claimed by Chile
prevents any extension of Peru's maritime domain out ta a full 200-
nautical- mile liruit, regardless of whether Chile has a maritime zone in
the same area; and
Third, Chileraises an argument based on themethod used ta calculate the
200 nautical miles distance.
II. Peru's Alleged Inconsistent Submissions
6.4 According to Chile:
"Peru's formulation of its daim to thealfa mar area '[b]eyond
the PJint where the common maritime border [ofChile andPeru]
ends' is inconsistent with its own primary position that there
is no agreed boundary with Chile. If Peru's primary position
were correct, the equidistance line whichPeru subrnits should
be drawn would delimit the full extent of Peru's total daim,
The position of Peru vis-à-vis the modern law of the sea is described in sorne details in the
Introduction ofthe present Reply, Section II. 297
including the alfa mar area: there could he no 'outer triangle'.
That can he seen very clearly in Figure 7.5 of Peru's Memorial
(at Plge 265), which shows that Peru's proposed maritime
boundary would give taPeru the alfa mar area as well as the
area claimed by Peru which lies within Chile's 200M bruit.
Yet Peru alsa asks the Court ta declare that Peru has 'exclusive
sovereign rights' in thalfa mar area '[b]eyond the point where
the cornillon maritime oorder ends'.":54
6.5 In the next paragraph of its Counter-Memorial, Chile asserts that Peru's daim
ta the outer triangle "could only be regarded as a daim in the alternative
ta its primary claim"549 insofar as the equidistance line which, failing any
agreement ta the contrary constitutes the border line between the respective
maritime domains of bath countries, leaves ta Peru the integrity of the outer
triangle. These allegations caU for two series of remarks:
First,indeed, nothingprevents States Parties heforetheCourt toplead "in
the alternative"; but
Second, this is not exactly so in the present case since there is no
inconsistency hetween the two submissions made by Peru.
6.6 Therefore, the two Submissions made by Peru in its Memorial, andmaintained
in the present Reply, can heuer he characterized as heing independent and
complementary than alternative (A.). Moreover, Peru's second Submission
can also he analysed as standing on its own (B.).
CCM , para 1.15 (footnotes omitted); see also paras. 2.110-2.112.
CCM , para 1.16; see also para 2.112. 298
A. PERu's SUBMISSIONS ARE INDEPENDENT AND COMPLEMENTARY
6.7 It is quite usual for States ta present alternative daims before the International
Court of Justice The:5Cou.rt examines these subsidiary arguments without
any hesitation or reluctanc Te~us,lin the case conceming the Arrest
m
Warrant of 11 April 2000, Belgium had made "a subsidiary argumenC (À
titre subsidiaire) that the Court discussed andaccepted I~isJterefore clear
that, even if Peru's claims were alternative, they would nevertheless still he
fully admissible.
6.8 In the present case, however, Peru's submissions are by no means
inconsistent with each ather. As Chile itself points out, "[i]f the boundary
were an equidistance line ... , there could nat he any 'outer triangle'. The
respective maritime zones of the Parties would he cotenninous at the end of
the equidistance line, and that line would give ta Peru the alfa mar area"~:54.
This is correct; but, by the same token, it shows that both submissions are
totally compatible and complementary to each other.
See e.g.Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragv.Colombia), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, lC.J. Report2007, pp. 838-840, para 12; Request for Interprofthe Judgment
of 31 March 2004 in the Case ConcerningAvena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v.
United States of America), Judgment19January 2009,lC.J.,pp. 5-7, para.Application of
the Convention on the Prevention and PunishmentofCrime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia),
Preliminary Objections, Judgment lC.J. Repo2008, p. 418-420, paras. 21-22.
See e.g.Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragv.Colombia), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, lC.J. Reports2007, p. 857, para 74; Request for Interpreof the Judgment of
31 March 2004 in the Case ConcerniAvena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexicv. United
States of America), Judgment o19January 2009,lC.J.,pp. 15-16, para 49 and p. 17, para.
59;Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Croatiav. Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, lC.J. Re2008, p. 432, paras.65-
67.
Arrest Warrant ofliApril 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congv.Belgium), Judgment,
lC.J. Reports2002, p. 18, para 41.
Ibid.para 43.
CCM, para 2.111 and footnote 280 with cross-reference to para 2.108 thereto and PM, Figure 7.1
(p. 245). See also CCM, para. 1.15. 299
6.9 Therefore, if by an "alternative claim" Chile means a daim which could
only succeed if the primary daim fails, Peru' s second submission could nat
he characterized as being made in the alternative: it is but the logical and
inescapable consequence of the former. In reality, the two submissions arenot
alternative. The first one requests the Court ta delimit the maritime boundary
by drawing an equidistance line in the area where the entitlements of the
Parties overlap. The second requests the Court ta acknowledge that Peru is
entitled ta exclusive sovereign rights, including within the outer triangle, in
accordance with intemationallaw. Moreover (and only in this respect could
the Submissions he described as being "alternative"), the second submission
draws attention ta the fact that, whatever the Court's decision conceming the
direction of the delimitation line, it could nat in any case fail to acknowledge
Peru's exclusive sovereign rights over the outer triangle.
6.10 In any case, there is certainly not the slightest incompatibility between these
essentially cumulative submissions. They are therefore not inconsistent; nor
have they been treated inconsistently by Peru, which has linked them by the
conjunction "and" which, given the circumstances, is more appropriate than
the conjunction "or".
B. PERu's SECOND SUBMISSION STANDS ON ITs OWN
6.11 Since the first Peruvian submission necessarily calls for the second one,
it might be wondered why Peru has expressly formulated this logically
consequential submission. In the circumstances of the present case, the reason
for that precaution is easy to be understood: Chile's claim to a "presencial
sea" beyond its own maritime domain constitutes an obvious threat to Peru's
exclusive sovereign rights in the outer triangle. 300
6.12 As was explained in the Memorial~ P~r~,has no intention ta express, within
the framework of this case, general views as ta the compatibility of this novel
concept with the principles and mIes of the modern law of the sea.
6.13 Chile asserts that "[t]he presencial sea is of no significance for the lateral
boundary between the Parties" and that Peru's sovereign rights over its outer
triangle are "nat excluded by the presencial sea."Peru would like ta believe
it. It notes however that, by virtue of its supposed rights in the "presencial
sea",Chile expressly daims a right ta have an access ta the Peruvian outer
557
triangle -which it alleges ta be part of the high seas - and, by virtue of
its rights in its "presencial sea", a right ta monitor the environment and ta
preserve marine resources 55, and varions ather rights such as the right ta
enact prohibition and restriction measures on fisheries or to adopt sanctions,
which were enumerated in Peru's Memorial~ S:iniflc.ndy, the Chilean
Counter-Memorial does not deny any of these elements of its presencial sea
theory; to thecontraI)" Chile takes care not to mention them.
6.14 It is true that "UN CLOS expressly provides for coastal States to takemeasures
in areas of the high seas adjacent to their EEZ conceming the conservation
and management of straddling fish stocks, highly migratory species and
marine mammals" and for the preservation of certain interests of coastal
States in relation to fisheries in the high sea,nd imposes special duties on
those States beyond the 200 nautical miles limit~ B u1,as relevant as these
PM, para 7.20.
CCM, para. 2.126. See also para 2.134.
CCM, paras. 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.74, 2.108, 2.126, 2.128, 2.172 and 5.7.
CCM, para. 2.129.
PM, paras. 7.11-7.19.
CCM, para. 2.130 (footnotes omitted).
CCM, para 2.133, citing Articles 98(2) and 100 ofthe 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea It
must be noted that those provisions impose on States a duty to co-operate and do not allowthem
to adopt unilateral measures, as is the case ofthe Chile's conceptsea.resencial 301
provisions couldhave been if the outer triangle had genuinely been an area of
high seas, that is nat the case in the present dispute. As has been shawn, the
continental shelf in this area belongs ipso facto ta Peru6, and, clearly, Peru
has alsa proclaimed its entidement ta a full 200-nautical-mile zone (including
the water column) in its 1979:56and 199~ 64 Constitutions which Chile has
never protested. Chile has therefore no such obligationsor rights in the outer
triangle area.
6.15 For the same reason, Chile's defence based on Peru's adoption of allegedly
similarmeasur: e5is~ill-founded. Peru's measures referred ta by Chile apply
in the high seas, nat in the maritime domain lying within 200 nautical miles
of another State. More particularly, the only specifie provision mentioned by
Chile:56-6 Article 7 of Peru's General Law on Fisheries of 1992, which seeks
ta ensure the correlation between the conservation of the species measures that
are applied in waters under national jurisdiction and the protection of living
resources beyond jurisdictional waters - is only applicable to national flag
vessels, and has no compulsory nature with respect to vessels flying another
State's flag. Similarly, the measures provided for in the Agreement on the
Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Area of the South-East
Pacific - concluded under the aegis of the CPPS and to which Chile and Peru
are Parties - are applicable in the high seas "in order to prevent, reduce and
control pollution of the marine environment and coastal area of the South
East Pacific and to ensure appropriate environmental management of natural
resources." 6These measures only apply with respect to the States Parties to
that Agreement - which has never entered into force - and not to third States.
PM, paras. 7.25-7.38.
See Article 98 of the Political Constitution of Pern of 1979. PM, Annex 17.
See Article 54 ofthe Political Constitution ofPeru of 1993. PM, Annex 19.
CCM , para 2.131.
Ibid.
See Article 3.1 ofthe Agreement on the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal
Area ofthe South-East Pacifie , signed on 12 November 1981. CCM, Annex 12. See also CCM,
para 2.132. 302
6.16 Clearly Chile's daims, which might he sustainable as far as the high seas are
concemed, are incompatible with the basic rights that the coastal State - Peru
in the present case- enjoys in maritime areas thatlie within 200 nautical miles
from its coasts and where it possesses sovereign rights and jurisdiction. While
the rights in question are limited ta particular (but quite extensive) domains,
they exclude interference by any ather State. And yet, it is precisely in those
domains that Chile daims ta exercise rights by vrrtue of its "presencial sea"
theory.
6.17 The exclusive rights of the coastal State have been quite clearly set farth in
Article 56 (Rights, jurisdiction and duties ofthe coastal State in the exclusive
economic zone) and Article 77 (Rights of the coastal State over the continental
shelf) of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which respectively
read:
Article 56
"1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living
or non-living, of the waters superjacentto the seabed and of the
seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the
economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the
production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdictionas provided for in the relevant provisions of this
Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and useof artificial islands, installations
and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine
environment; 303
(c) ather rights and duties provided for in this Convention.
2. In exercising its rightsand performing its duties under this
Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State
shaH have due regard ta the rights and duties of ather States
and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this
Convention.
3. The rights set out in this article with respect ta the seabed and
subsoil shaHhe exercised in accordance with Part VI."
Article 77
"1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf
sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its
natural resources.
2. Therights referred ta in p:rragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense
that if the coastal State does nat explore the continental shelf
or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these
activities without the express consent of the coastal State.
3.Therights of the coastal State over the continental shelf cb nat
depend on occuPltion, effective or notional, or on any express
proclamation.
4. The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of the
mineral and other non-living resources of the seabedand subsoil
together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species,
that is to say,organisms which, at theharvestablestage, either are
immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in
constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil."
6.18 The Court has also had occasion to recall this legal situation with regard to the
continental shelf in the case conceming the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya/A1alta). As the Court stated: 304
"Each coastal State isentitled ta exercise sovereign rights over
the continental shelf off its coasts for the purpose of exploring it
and exploiting its natural resources (Art. 77 of the Convention)
up ta a distance of 200 miles from the baselines - subject of
course ta delimitation with neighl:xmring States - whatever the
geophysical or geological features ofthe sea-bed within the area
comprised between the coast and the 200-mile limit.":568
6.19 It will he apparent that the rights claimed by Chile are incompatible with the
exclusive rights recognized ta the coastal State - that is Peru - within 200
nautical miles of its coast, whether Chile's "rights" concem:
The "monitoring [of] the environment"5oXltbrough an active presence,
which is clearly incompatible with the exclusive right and duty of the
coastal State ta "ensure tbrough proper conservation and management
measures that the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive
economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation"~7o;
Prohibitions (sub poena) "such as closed seasons and capture quotas"~71,
which cannot bereconciled with therights of coastal States to "detennine
the allowable catch of the living resources in its exclusive economic
zone"m and, more generally, with their exclusive right to utilize (or to
m
regulate the utilization of) living resources in the area ;
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab JamahiriyalMalta), Judgment, lC.J. Reports 1985, p. 56, para
77.
See CCM, para. 2.129. See also Libro de la Defensa Nacional de Chile [Defence White Book of
Chile], 2002. CCM, Annex 153.
See Article 61(2), 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea
PM, para 7.13.
See Article 61(1), 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea See also e.g., Article 62(4) and spec.
(b) and (c).
See Article 62, 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea. 305
Sanctions or "[p]roceedings for violation of [laws]" ~7i4h is
incompatiblewith the right of the coastal State, "in the exercise of its
sovereign rights ta explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living
resources in the exclusive economic zone, [ta] take such measures,
including ... judicial proceedingsas may he necessary ta ensure
compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity
with [the] Convention"m;
"[P]rohibitions of specifie typrigs" w~7ih is nat compatible with
the "exclusive right [of the coastal State] ta construct and ta authorize
and regulate the construction, operation and use" of "installations and
structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and ather economic
"[T]heright ta collectregis trationfees"m which isclearly against theright
of the coastal State ta adopt laws and regulations as regards "licensing
of fishennen, fishing vessels and equipment, including payment of fees
and other fonns oremuneration"~70.
6.20 It therefore appears that an express finding by the Court that "Peru is entitled to
exercise exclusive sovereign rights over a maritime arealying out to a distance
of 200 nautical miles from ibaselines wo~l80be entirely justified.
PM, para 7.13. Chile's Decree No. 430/91 of28 September 1991, establishing the Consolidated,
Co-ordinated and Systematized Text of Law No. 18.892 of 1989 and its Amendments, General
Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture, Art. 124. PR, Annex 27.
See Article 73(1), 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea
PR, Annex 27, Article 5.
See Article 60(1), 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea.
m
PR, Annex 27, Article 43.
Article 62(4)(a), 1982 Convention onofthe Sea
See Peru's Second Submission at p. 331. 306
ill. Irrelevance of Chile's "Agreed Delimitation" Claim
on Peru's Entitlement to Sovereign Rights in the Outer Triangle
6.21 According ta Chile's second argument conceming the outer triangle:
"Under the Santiago Declaration, the parallel of latitude operates
as a limit for the entire seaward {Xtentof the Parties' maritime
zones, regardless of whether the ather Party has an abutting
zone.'"581
In an effort ta establish this proposition, Chile makes two main arguments:
First and generally, Chile's claimed agreed delimitation would apply
regardless of the distance from the coast (A.); and,
Second, Peru' s outer triangle, if recognized ta faH under Peru' s sovereign
rights and jurisdiction, would curtail Chile's practical access ta the high
seas (B .).
6.22 The first - and main - answer ta such argumentation is that the Declaration
of Santiago did nat purport ta establish a maritime delimitation between
the two countries and has not done SO~8 It s therefore for the sole purpose
of the discussion that Peru will answer hereafter in turn each of these two
arguments.
CCM, para 1.16. See also paras. 2.113-2.116.
Itgoes without saying that Peru's discussion ofthis Chilean argument does not imply any kind
of acceptation that the 1952 Santiago Declaration provifor a delimitation of the Parties'
respective maritime areas and must be understood notwithstandingPeru's position in this
respect, as exposed in Chapter III ofthis Reply. 3[Jl
A. THE CHILE'S CLAIM FOR AN UNLTh1ITED SEAWARD EX1ENSION
OF TIIE ALLEGED PARALLEL OF LATITUDE
6.23 Chile's general argument in order ta deny Peru's entitlement ta exclusive
sovereign rights in the outer triangle is developed as follows in paragraph
2.114 ofits Counter-Memorial:
"Using p:rrallels oflatitude as maritime boundaries meant that if
a State party unilaterally extended its zone seaward, the p:rrallel
of latitude would continue ta operate as alaterallimit, regardless
of whether the adjacent State claimed any abutting maritime
zone of 'sovereignty' or any type of 'jurisdiction' on the ather
sicleof thep:rralleof latitude. In thway, if one State extended
its daim further than 200 nautical miles, no issue of overlap
could arise with the adjacent State. The adjacent State could at
any time also extend its own zone, in which case the extended
zone would continue ta helaterally limited by the same p:rrallel
of latitude:~8J
6.24 This is a perplexing argument since it finds absolutely no support whatsoever
in the text or the general spirit of the 1952 Declaration of Santiago and is
clearly incompatible with the subsequent development of law, through
the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and as a matter of customary
intemationallaw (1)~8 T4he plain factisthat Peru's exclusive sovereign rights
within the outer triangle exclude any thirdParty's claim (2).
CCM, para 2.114.
Cf (by way of analogy) Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South
Africa in Namibia (South WestAfrica) notwithstanding Security Council Re:276 (1970),
Advisory Opinion, lC.J. Repor1971, p. 31Western Sahara,Advisory Opinion, lC.J. Reports
1975, p. 32. 308
1. The Inapplicability of Point II afthe Declaration afSantiago
6.25 The text of point II of the Declaration of Santiago reads as follows:
"... the Governments of Chile, Ecuacbr and Peru proclaim as
a norm of their international maritime poliey that they each
possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea along
the coasts of their respective countries ta a minimum distance of
200 nautical miles from these coasts."
Spanish text:
"... los Gobiernos de Chile, Ecuador y Peru proclaman como
nonna de su politica intemacional maritima, la soberania y
jurisdicci6n exclusivas que a cacIaUlla de ellos corresponde
solJre el mar que baiia las costas de sus respectivos paises, hasta
una distancia minima de 200 millas marinas desde las referidas
costas."
As noted in Peru's Memorial~ t8s ,provision does nat address lateral
boundaries at all.A reference ta the parallels only appears in point IV, which,
absent any island, isnot relevant in the relations hetween thParties~86.
6.26 Moreover, point II of the Declaration of Santiago must he interpreted today in
light of the subsequent development of the law of the sea, through the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea and by way of customary law. As the Court
has observed: "an international instrument has to he interpreted and applied
within the framework of the entire legal system prevailing at the time of the
See PM, para 4.74.
See above, paras. 3.65-3.82. 309
interpretati Thos ."s~llthe more indispensable given that the nonn in
question isa "nonn of [the tbree countries'] international maritime policy";
such a poliey must he read in accordance with positive internationallaw.
6.27 It is unsustainable ta allege nowadays that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago
allows a participating State ta extend its maritime zones as far as it deems
suitable.The modern law of the sea - ta which Chile is bound as a Party ta
the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and Peru tbrough its abidance
with, and acceptance of, the prevailing general customary intemationallaw
- strictly bruits any State's entitlements ta sovereign rights in the exclusive
economic zone ta 200nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth
of the territorial sea measured~ W88h.respect ta the continental shelf, a
coastalState possesses sovereign rights "that extend beyond its territorial sea
tbroughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the
continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the outer edge
of the continental margin does not extend up to thdistance."~8o
6.28 It is thus irrelevant to assert nowadays that the Declaration of Santiago didnot
establish any limitation on aState party's maritime zones so as to leave open
the possibilityf maritime entidements beyond 200 nautical miles from the
coast.
SeeLegal Consequencesfor States of the Continued Presence ofSouin Namibia (South
West Africa) notwithstanding Security Counci/ Re276 (1970)Advisory Opinion, lC.J.
Reports1971, p. 31, para. 53. SWestern &hara, Advisory Opinion, lC.J. Re1975, p.
32, para. 56.
See Article 57, 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea
See Article 76, 1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea. See also Article 57. 310
2. Peru's Exclusive Sovereign Rights within the Outer Triangle
exchJde any Third Party's Claim
6.29 It must also he noted that, apart from traditional rights such as freedoms of
navigation and overflight recognized by the modem law of the sea, a coastal
State has no entitlement ta sovereign rights in maritime areas located beyond
this 200 nautical miles bruit. States are therefore nat allowed ta extend their
maritime domain at will, as results from the mIes embodied in the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea~D and as expressly recognized by Chile
itself with respect ta its own maritime domain:5>ll.In the present dispute,
Chile has no right, and cannat claim any right (besicles those pertaining ta all
ather States), in the Peruvian outer triangle. This is nat at all a question of a
territorial dispute or maritime delimitation. The issue here iswhether aState
See Articles 56 and 77 quoted above, at para 6.17.
Law No. 18.565 of 13 October 1986, Amendment to the Civil Code Regarding Maritime Spaces:
"Article 596.- The adjacent sea which extends to a distance of two hundred nantical miles
measured from the baselines from which the width of the territorial seais measured, and beyond
the territorial sea, shallnown as the exclusive economic zone. The State shall exercise therein
sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and administer living and non-living natural
resources ofthe waters over the seabed, of the seabed and of the subsoil of the sea, and to develop
any other activities with awto the economic exploration and exploitation ofthis zone.
The State shall exercise exclusive sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purposes of
conserving, exploring and exploiting its natural resources.
ln addition, the State shall have any other jurisdiction and the rights provided for under
International Law in relation to the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf."
(Spanish text: "Articulo 596.-El mar adyacente que se extiende hastalas doscientas millas marinas
contadas desde las lineas de base a partir de las cuales se mide la anchura dei mar territorial,
y mas alla de este ultimo, se denomina zona econ6mica exclusiva En ella el Estado ejerce
derechos de soberania para explorar, explotar, conservar y administrar los recursos naturales
vivos y no vivos de las aguas suprayacentes allecho, dellecho y el subsuelo dei mar, y para
desarrollar cualesquiera otras actividades con miras a la exploraci6n y explotaci6n econ6micas
de esa zona.
El Estado ejerce derechosde soberania exclusivos sobre la plataforma continental para los fines
de la conservaci6n, exploraci6n y explotaci6n de sus recursos naturales.
Ademas, al Estado le corresponde toda otra jurisdicci6n y derechos previstos en el Derecho
Internacional respecto de la zona econ6mica exclusiva y de la platafonna continental."). PM,
Annex 36. 311
such as Peru can he deprived of a right ta an exclusive economic zone and
continental shelf within its 200-mile zone that the intemationallaw of the sea
prohibits any ather State from claiming.
6.30 Given that Chile has no daim ta sovereign rights over the Peruvian outer
triangle, there is nothing in that area ta be delimited between the Parties.
As has been aptly explained, "[e]ntitlement ta maritime zones precedes
their delimitation, as an area over which no competing tides exist can nat he
delimited."501Or, as the Court itself put it:
"The need for delimitation of areas of continental shelf between
the Parties can only arise within the submarine region in which
daims by them ta the exercise of sovereign rights are legally
possible according ta intemationallaw."~J
In ather words, beyond 200 nautical miles from Chile's coasts, there is simply
nothing ta he delimited.
3. Peru Has Not Renounced Ils Sovereign Rights within the Outer Triangle
6.31 The only possible argument in support of Chile's daim would have been an
express renunciation by Peru. Such arenunciation cannot belightly presumed.
As the Court observed, "the pertinent legal test is whether there [is] thus
Oude Elferink, Alex G.: "Does Undisputed Title to a Maritime Zone Always Exclude its
Delimitation:he Grey Area Issue". In:The International Journal of Marine and Coastal ww,
Vol. 13, No. 2,p.146.
Continental Shelf(Tunisia/LibyanArabJamahiriya), Judgment, lC.J. Reports1982, p. 42, para.
34. See alsNorth Sea Continental Shelf Judgment, lC.J. Report1969, p. 22, par20;Aegean
Sea Continental Shelf Judgment, lC.J. Reports1978, pp. 35-36, paras. 84-85Delimitation of
the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment, lC.J. Report1984, p. 339, para.
228; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, lC.J.
Reports1993, pp. 66-67, para 64. 312
evidenced acquiescence" (acquiescement manifeste)'W4 by Peru in either
relinquishing any of its maritime domain ta which it is entitled or passing title
from itself ta Chile. As Peru has shawn in its Memorial5 i>il~c,ear that it
did nat renounce ta its sovereign rights in this area; for its part, Chile has no
sovereign rights at all in the outer triangle.
6.32 In an attempt ta present the Declaration of Santiago as being one among ather
cases where "one State's entitlement or daim is eut short by a delimitation
line even though another State does nat have the same type of maritime zone,
or any zone at all, on the ather sicle of that line"5D6,Chile asserts that "such a
line was agreed between Argentina and Chile in 1984.":5>'7
6.33 As was expressly explained in the Preamble of that instrument, the Parties
declared that they "[h]ave resolved ta conclude the following Treaty, which
constitutes a compromise ...". Nevertheless, the present situation is in sharp
contrast with the example provided by Chile. As Chile rightly notes: "[i]n
that delimitation, Chile conceded an area almost as large as the alfa mar area
now claimed by Peru, to which Chile would otherwise have been entitled
by application of a 200M distance criterion"5>l8.This cession was expressly
consented to by Chile through a formal treaty which indisputably established
maritime boundaries between that country and Argentin a:5W.It can be noted
that the last paragraph of Article 7 of the 1984 Treaty provides that "south
wnd and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria: Equatorial
Guinea intervening), Judgment lC.J. Report2002, p. 353, para. 67. SeeCase Concerning
Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romanv. Ukraine), Judgment of3 February2009, p.
25, para. 71.
PM, paras. 7.29-7.38.
CCM, para. 2.124.
CCM, para. 2.125.
Ibid.(Emphasis added).
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina,signed on 29 November 1984.
CCM, Annex 15. 313
of the end of the boundary (point F)" - which is the final point within 200
miles of the baselines of both parties - Chile's exclusive economic zone may
he extended ta the liruits pennitted by intemationallaw ta the west of the
meridian that farms the final segment of the boundary "ending on the east
at the high seas." The effect is that areas south of point F that are within
200 miles of Chile's coastal baselines but beyond 200 miles from those of
Argentina may nat he claimed as part of the Chilean exclusive economic zone
ta the east of the meridian that fonned the final segment of the maritime
boundary. But it has ta he noted that the agreement does nat identify this
meridian south of point F as a maritime boundary; quite ta the contraI)" it
expressly identifies point F as the final point of the boundary. Figure R-6.1
illustrates that transaction that satisfies the Parties.
6.34 Absent such a transaction, it is undeniable that, even under the extraordinary
Chilean claim that the 1952 Declaration of Santiago wouldhave delimited the
respective maritime domains of Peru and Chile along the alleged parallel "at
the point at which the land frontier of the States concerned reaches the sea"
(quod non), such a finding would have no influence on Peru's entitlement to
exercise exclusive sovereign rights over the outer triangle.
B. THE CH:rLE's CLAIM: BASED ON AN AlLEGED LIMITATION OF ITS
ACŒSS TO TIIE HIGH SEAS
6.35 In its artificial attempt to deny Peru's exclusive sovereign rights over the
outer triangle and its natural resources, Chile also argues that:
"Peru's daim to the alfa mar area seeks to expmd its 'maritime
cbminion' in such a way that it would wrap around Chile's
continental shelf and EEZ for a length of approximately 110M
(in a North-South direction) and to a maximum breadth of 165M
(in an East-West direction) ... Peru's IXoposed expansion would
very considerably curtail practical access to the high seas from 314
the significant Chilean port of Arica, which lies directly ta the
east of thealfa mar area.'>OOo
6.36 The Chilean complaint is unfoundedon its face: under the modem international
law of the sea, "[i]n the exclusive economic zone, all States ... enjoy ... the
freedoms ... of navigation and overflight"OOl.
6.37 Indeed, in confonnity with this general prescription, Peru' s maritime domain
provides for freedom of navigation ta all ather States' ships. As early as 1947,
Supreme Decree No. 781 had specified that:
"The p.-esent declaration mes nat affect the right ta free
navigation of ships of all nations according ta international
law.'>OOl
6.38 This principle has been constantly maintained since then and is embodied
in Peru's Constitution itself. Article 54 of the 1993 Political Constitution
provides for freedom of international communications. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of
Article 54 read as follows:
"In its maritime domain, the State exercises sovereignty and
jurisdiction, without prejudice to the freedom of international
communications, pursuant to the law and the treaties ratified by
the State.
The State exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over the airsPlce
al:xweits territory and adjacent sea up to the limit of two hundred
nautical miles,without prejudice to thefreedom if international
000
CCM, para 1.14
om See Article 58, para1982 Convention on the Law ofthe Sea
Peru's Supreme Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947, para 4. PM, Annex 6. .'
ARGENTINA-CHILE
BOUNDARY AGREEMENT:
1984
Mercator Prcjection
WGS-84 Datum
" " " '""
N..Mil" ARGENTINA •
" '"" '" ~
Kilom.tors
Preparrernab"onal Mapping •~h' A B
0 ..0 l 'C
'.
~,
"
E1 1 !D
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
PA CIFIC
OCEAN +- 1 -
200 M limit Outer Triangle
26,20km..
67°16'OO"W 317
communications, pursuant ta the law and the treaties ratified by
the State.'>OOJ
Spanish text reads as follows:
"En su cbminio maritimo, el Estado ejerce soberania y
jurisdicci6n, sin perjuicio de las libertades de comunicaci6n
internacional, de acuerdo con la1eyy con los trataoos ratificados
por el Estado.
El Estacb ejerce soberania y jurisdicci6n sobre el espacia aéreo
que cubre su territorioy el mar adyacente hasta el limite de las
ooscientas millas, sin perjuicio de las libertades de comunicaci6n
internacional, de confonnidad con la 1ey y con los trataoos
ratificados por el Estaoo."
6.39 This is indeed a very paradoxical presentation of the situation. As shawn
on the two sketch-maps appearing here, Figures R-6.2 and R-6.3 which
are faithful representations of the respective daims of the Parties with only
a slight transposition of the axis of the maps which makes the maps more
telling, it is very clear that it is Chile's claimed line following the alleged
parallel which "considerably curtails practical access to the high seas" from
the Peruvian coast. The following remarks are in order in this respect:
(a) Thes trictequidistancelineconstitutes theapproximate bisector line of the
angle fonned by the coasts of the Parties in the region of Tacna (Peru)
and Arica (Chile);
(h) Asmadecrystal clear by thefirstsketchmap(Figure R-6.2), the baundary
being the equidistance line, all the harbaurs situated on bath coasts
(Arica, Pisagua, Iquique or Tocopilla in Chile; Vila Vila, 110,Mollendo,
Political Constitution ofPeru of 1993, paras. 3 and 4 (emphasis added). PM, Annex 19. 318
Quilca or Oco:iia in Peru) have a direct access ta the high seas: the
shortest way ta reach the high seas is for al! these harbours entirely
situated in the national maritime domain of the country where they are
located;
(c) On the contraI)" as shawn by the second sketch map (Figure R-6.3), the
line that follows the parallel of latitude claimed by Chile clearly blacks
access from the Peruvian harbours of Vila Vila and 110ta the Peruvian
outer triangle that is partof the Peru's maritime domain.
IV. Chile's Argument Concerning the Method Used by Peru
to Measure the Outer Limit of Ils Maritime Domain
6.40 Probably because it has no doubt as ta Peru's entitlement ta exclusive
sovereign rights over the outer triangle and its natural resources, in the Section
of its Counter-Memorial devoted ta that matter, Chile puts the emphasis
on the discussion of an aspect which does nat hear on the existence or the
substance of Peru's rights in that area, but on the method used to measure
the outer liruit of Chile's and Peru's respective maritime domains. In this
respect Chile contends - erroneously - that Peru has changed the method
used to that effectO4,but, since Chile accepts "that the lateral boundary stands
Chile distoIis Peruvian norms. A clear example ofthis is given by the way in \\hich Chile makes
reference to Supreme Resolution No. 23 of 12 January 1955 (CCM, paras. 3.50-3.56 and 4.30-
4.32). On this respect, Peru has pointed out the true scope ofsuch Resolution in paragraphs 4.112
and 4.113of its Memorial, asserting that its purpose was to adjust the measurement method of
the 200-mile projection. The 1955 Supreme Resolution refers to a constant distance from the
coast, in a manner consistent with \\hat had been previously established in the 1952 Petroleum
Law and the Declaration of Santiago. The only reference to a parallel in the 1955 Resolution is
circumscribed to \\hat is provided for in point IV of the Declaration of Santiago, i.e., to the case
\\here there is presence of islands. 319
PERU'S MARITIME BOUNDARY CLAIM
ALLOWS CHILE DIRECT ACCESS
TO ITS OWN MARITIME SPACE
-,,"'-,"'"
0"",,,,"0$'"
_.~~-.,"'"
'00
""".,.....
(oo"""o~.",,"'''' 00 , .,,~" ""'2•;m ... "" .,,,.""1000 ._
StrIct EquIdIstance
Figure R-6.2 321
CHILE'S MARITIME BOUNDARY CLAIM
BLOCKS PERU FROM DIRECT ACCESS
TO ITS OWN MARITIME SPACE
_. >O''''';'o<too
0" "", "'0$_'-'
,,..._. ,,'"
'00
",,,.,"'"
".,'r~oo.~t""b... , 00 ...,,~,•"'= '>0,'0"".....,,~,••"",,-.,00
Stnct EquIdIStance
CHILE'S MARITIME CLAIM
Figure R-6.3 323
regardless of the methodology that each State party adopts in measuring the
outward reach of its maritime zone"o oh~s,alleged change would he of no
consequence in respect ta the issue discussed in the present Chapter: that is
Peru's exclusive sovereign rights over the outer triangle.
6.41 While Chile accepts that "the Santiago Declaration was nat prescriptive about
the method ta he used ta measure the seaward liruit of each State's maritime
zone"d06,and states that it "does nat abject" ta Peru' s use of the envelope-of-
OO7
arcs-of-circles method ta measure the outwardlimit of its maritime domain ,
Chile tries ta use this discussion ta advance its case as ta the establishment
of a maritime boundary by the Declaration of Santiago. However, the link is
obscure: precisely silice whatever the methodology, it has no impact on the
lateral boundary and there is no need ta discuss the issue in this perspective;
if the Declaration detennined a maritime boundary, it will remain as fixed by
it; if not, the maritime boundary would remain unfixed. Moreover, this would
suppose that the signatories of the Declaration had (and still have) the right to
extend their maritime domains beyond the 200 nautical mile limit, which is
OO8
untenable as shown above •
6.42 As far as Peru can understand, the idea is that since the line was fixed at
the alleged parallel, whatever the method used the boundary will remain
fixed there. But this is a purely circular reasoning and does not help Chile.
In substance, Chile contends that "since there isa boundary, the boundary
remains where it is": this neither proves that there is a boundary, nor that it
has to follow a specific direction, nor that Peru has no rights over the outer
CCM, para 2.119.
CCM, para 2.123.
Ibid.
See above paras. 6.25-6.28 above. 324
triangle. It only shows that the artificialissue conceming the methodology is
irrelevant for that purpose.
6.43 On this, Peru agrees. And it takes note that Chile "does nat abject" ta Peru's
use of the envelope-of-arcs-of-circles method.
6.44 By way of conclusion ta this chapter, it is apparent that:
(a) Peru is entitled ta a maritime domain extending up ta 200 nautical miles
from its coasts, in accordance with general internationallaw as reflected
by the 1952 Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular Articles 57
and 76(2) of the Convention;
(h) The area situated north of the equidistance Iille, which is the maritime
boundary line between the Parties, integrally constitutes Peru's maritime
domain;
(c) Even if it were considered that the boundary does nat follow the
equidistance line (and whatever line would constitute the boundary), the
"outer triangle", defined as the maritime area lying off Peru's southern
coasts, within 200 nautical miles of Peru' s baselines but more than 200
nautical miles from Chile's coasts, would be part of Peru's maritime
domain where it enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction;
(d) In this zone, Peru's sovereign rights are exclusive in accordance with
international law as reflected e.g., in Parts V and VI of the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Chile can claim no rights apart
from those recognized to third States by general internationallaw, as
presently embodied in the 1982 Convention;
(e) The recognition of the outer triangle as partofPeru's maritime domain by
no means can be said to curtail practical access to the high seas from 325
Chile's harbours in the region; in contrast, the boundary line claimed by
Chile would severely curtail access ta the outer triangle from the Peru's
harbours in the region; and
if) Whatever the methodology used for measuring the outer bruit of Peru's
maritime domain, it has no impact on the lateral boundary. CHAPTERVII
SUMMARY
7.1 The Courthas jurisdiction ta delimit the maritime boundary between Peru and
Chile based on Article :XXXI of the Pact of Bogota. Chile's submissions in its
Counter-Memorial have nat raised any objections ta the Court's jurisdiction
or ta the admissibility of Peru's daims. The Court is fully empowered ta
decide on the delimitation issues put ta it in Peru' s Application and Memorial,
andresponded ta in Chile's Counter-Memorial.
7.2 Chile seeks ta challenge the agreement of the Parties in 1929-1930 with
respect ta the endpoint of the land boundary where it meets the sea by arguing
thatBita No. 1 is the land boundary terminus.
7.3 The 1929 Treaty clearly stated that the land boundary "shaH start from a
point on the coast ta he named 'Concordia', ten kilometres ta the north of
the bridge over the river Lluta". Moreover, the Joint Commission charged
with demarcating the boundary in 1930 had precise instructions from the
Governments of the two Parties that the starting point of the land boundary
would be the point where an arc having a radius of ten kilometres from
theriver Lluta bridge intercepted the seashore. Contemporary sketch maps
prepared at the time confinn the location of the land boundary, including its
terminal pointon the sea. This is Point Concordia, noHito No. 1. 328
7.4 Any maritime boundary between the Parties must start at the terminal point
of their land boundary where that boundary meets the sea. That point was
settled in 1929-1930. Chile now tries ta unsettle it by advancing a position
that is directly at odds with what was agreed at the time. Moreover, Chile' s
position is also inconsistent with its own official mapping practice.
7.5 The main issue that divides the Parties concems the abject and purpose of the
1952 Declaration of Santiago and the interpretation of the express tenns of
point IV of that Declaration.
7.6 Contrary ta Chile's assertions, the Declaration of Santiago was nat, and was
nat intended ta he, a legally-binding instrument establishing international
maritime boundaries. A plain reading of its text, considered in the light
of its abject and purpose, shows that the Declaration of Santiago was a
declaration of international maritime policy advanced in the face of threats
from foreign whaling and fishing fleets. It was not a treaty, let alone a
boundary agreement. The Declaration does not refer to a maritime boundary
either in its title or in its text. No co-ordinates of a boundary are indicated
and no map depicting a boundary is attached. It was not referred to as a
boundary agreement at the time.
7.7 Point IV of the Declaration of Santiago is devoted solely to the question
of islands. It sets forth the maritime zones of islands (200 nautical miles),
and the limits to such zones in the event that an island or group of islands
is situated less than 200 nautical miles from the general maritime zone of
another signatory State (in which case, the maritime zone of the island or
group of islands is limited by the parallel of latitude at the point where the
land boundary of the States concemed reaches the sea). Point IV has nothing
to do with the delimitation of the maritime boundary between two mainland
coasts where islands are not a factor (as is the case between Peru and Chile). 329
It thus has no application ta the delimitation of the waters adjacent ta the land
boundary between Peru and Chile.
7.8 The Parties' subsequent practice after the Declaration of Santiago was signed
does nat evidence any agreement between them that they considered the
Declaration ta have delimited their maritime boundary. No Chilean map
publishedduring the40 years following theD eclaration of Santiago depicted an
agreedmaritime boundary with Peru. Chile only unilaterally started ta change
its maps in a self-serving fashion in the 1990s. No Peruvian map published
following the 1952 Declaration of Santiago depicted an agreed international
maritime boundary with Chile. Neither Party's intemallegislation refers ta
the fact that an international maritime boundary had been agreed under the
Declaration of Santiago. Ta the contrary, in 1986, Peru proposed taChile ta
negotiate a maritime delimitation agreement - a proposal which Chile said it
wouldstudy.
7.9 The 1954 Agreement on a Special Zone, as well as the 1968-1969 light
tower arrangements, and the general policing of fishing by the Parties, were
designed to deal with the practical problem of reducing friction between
fishermen operating small boats. None of this modified or derogated
from the 1952 Declaration of Santiago, or evidenced the existence of an
agreed, international maritime boundary for all purposes or of a permanent
character.
7.10 Given the absence of any agreed boundary, the delimitation of the maritime
boundary between the Parties falls to be decided by the Court. The applicable
law in this case is customary international law, as reflected in the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Peru's maritime domain referred to in
its Constitution and within which it exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights
and jurisdiction, is fully compatible with intemationallaw and with the 1982 330
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. For its part, Chile has
never voiced any reservations about the nature of Peru's maritime domain in
the pasto
7.11 The basic principle of maritime delimitation is reflected in the "equidistancel
relevant circumstances" method articulated in the Court's jurisprudence. It is
an unchallenged fact that an equidistance boundary between the Parties out
ta a distance of 200 nautical miles from their coasts achieves an equitable
result in thelight of the geographic facts of this case, and satisfies the test of
proportionality. Furthennore, it is apparent that Chile's parallel of latitude
daim cuts off Peru's legitimate maritime entitlements, fails ta satisfy the
proportionality test, and is grossly inequitable.
7.12 Chile's claimed delimitation line along the parallel of latitude also has the
effect of depriving Peru of its sovereign rights over a maritime area which
is located within 200 nautical miles of its own baselines, but beyond 200
nautical miles from Chile's baselines. This is the "outer triangle" discussed
in Chapter VI. Chile' s claim is incompatible with the exclusive sovereign
rights that Peru possesses under intemationallaw in this area - an area where
Chile has no continental shelf or exclusive economic zone entidements at all.
Recognition by the Court of Peru's rights in the "outer triangle" would in no
way prejudice Chile or curtail its access to the high seas. 331
SUBMISSIONS
For the reasons set out in Peru's Memorial and this Reply, the Republic of
Peru requests the Court ta adjudge and declare that:
(1) The delimitation between the respective maritime zones between the
Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile, is a line starting at "Point
Concordia" (defined as the intersection with the low-water mark of a 10-
kilometre radius arc, having as its centre the first bridge over the River
Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway) and equidistant from the baselines
of both Parties, up ta a point situated at a distance of 200 nautical miles
from those baselines, and
(2) Beyond thepoint where thecommonmaritime border encls,Peru isentitled
ta exercise exclusive sovereign rights over a maritime area lying out ta
a distance of 200 nautical miles from its baselines.
The Republic of Peru reserves its right ta amend these submissions as the case
may he in the course of the present proceedings.
The Hague, 9 November 2010
ALLAN WAGNER
Agent of the Republic of Peru INDEX OF APPENDICES AND ANNEXES
VOLUME II
APPENDICES
Appendix A Statement ofMr. Crist6bal Rosas 3
Appendix B StatementofMr. Javier Pérezde Cuéllar 19
ANNEXES
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF PERU
Annex PRl Circular Letler No. CD)2-6-N/27 of 23 September 1947,
from the Secretary-Generalof the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Peru to a Group of Peruvian Embassies and
Missions 31
Annex PR2 Regulation of Captaincies and National Merchant Navy of
1951,Approved by Supreme Decree No. 21 of31 October
1951 35
Annex PR3 Official Lerter (M): 5-4/166 of 11 July 1952, from the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru to the Ambassador of
~~~ E
Annex PR4 Official Letler No5-12-YI269 of 13 October 1952, from
the chargéd'affaires a.i.eru to Ecuador to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs ofPeru 43
Annex PR5 Official Letler No. 5-12-AI152 of 17 October 1952, from
the chargéd'affaires a.i. ofPeru to Ecuador to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs ofPeru 47 334
Annex PR6 Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Peruvian
Congress regarding the agreements and treaties signed by
Peru, Chile and Ecuador of 4 May 1955 51
Annex PR 7 Records of the Second 1954 Extraordinary Legislature of
the Peruvian Congress. Second Session Held on Thursday
5 May 1955 65
Annex PRS Official Letler No. 5-4-Y/68 of11 July 1955,from the chargé
d'affaires a.i.Peru to Chile to the Peruvian Minister of
Foreign Affairs 73
Annex PR9 Ministerial Resolution No. 458of28 April 1961, Issued by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofPeru 77
Annex PR10 Memorandum No. (J) - 11 of 24 January 1968, from the
Head of Borders Department to the Secretary-General of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ofPeru 81
Annex PRll Law Decree No. 25977, General Fisheries Law 87
Annex PR12 Records of the 1993 Constituent Congress Regarding the
Marmer in Which the Maritime Domain Was Addressed in
the Text of the Constitution 93
Annex PR13 Directoral Resolution No. 0313-94/DCG of 23 September
1994, Approving the Peruvian Positioning and Security
Information System Issued by the Ministry ofDefence 109
Annex PR14 Supreme Resolution No. 231-2001-RE of 28 May
2001, Submitting to the Congress of the Republic the
Documentation Concerning Peru's Accession to the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 117
Annex PR15 Official Letter RE (TRA) No. 3-0/74 of30 May 2001, from
the President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of
Foreign Affairs ofPeru to the President of the Congress 121
Annex PR16 Law No. 29189, Law Specifying Article 3 of Law No.
27415, Law on Territorial Demarcation of the Province of
Tacna, Department of Tacna 135
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF CHILE
Annex PR17 Chilean Civil Code of 1855 141
Annex PR1S Decree vvith Force of Law No. 2090 of30 July 1930 145
Annex PR19 1952 Memoir of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic ofChile 149 335
Annex PR20 Senate RecordsofDebates oftheCongress ofChile.Twenty
First Heldon 10August 1954 155
Annex PR 21 Report No. 138of 15 September 1964 Issued by the Head
of the Legal Advisory Office of the Ministry of Foreign
A fTairsof Chile, RaU&zan Dâvila, Upon Request of the
Borders Directorate 163
Annex PR 22 Decree No. 401 of 6 May 1985 Promulgating the Treaty
of Peace and Friendship hetween the Government of the
Republic of Chile and the Goverrunent of the Republic of
Argentina 173
Annex PR23 Decree No. 94 of Il April 1985 on the Prohibition of the
Use ofTrawling and Fence Fisrung Gears in the Indicated
Areas and Abolishing the Decree that It Indicates 179
Annex PR24 Supreme Decree CM) No. 991 of 26 Octaber 1987
Establishing the Jurisdiction the Maritime Gobernations
of the Republic of Chile and EstahlislUng the Harbour
Authorities and their Respectiverisructions 183
Annex PR25 Decree with Force of Law No. 2·18.715 of 9 JWle 1989
Determines the Specific Limits of the Provinces of the
Country 189
Annex PR 26 Decree No. 704 of29 Octoher 1990 Amending Decree CM)
No. 1.190of 1976 that Organises the Maritime Search and
Rescue Service ofChile's Navy 193
Annex PR 27 Decree No. 430/91of28 Septemher 1991, Establisrung the
Consolidated,Co·orrunated and Systematized Text of Law
No. 18.892of 1989 and Its Amendments, General Law on
Fisheries and Aquaculture
197
Annex PR28 Message No. 372·353of21 October 2005 Addressed bythe
President of the Republic of Chile, Ricardo Lagostathe
Chilean Chamber of Deputies Beginning the Process of
Approval of Draft Law Creating the XV Region of Arica
and Parinacota and the Province of Trunarugal, in the
Region ofTarapaca 211
Anl1exPR 29 Bulletin No. 4048·06 of 13 Novemher 2006, Instructions
Given During the General Discussion on the Draft Law
Creating the XV Region of Arica and Parinacota and the
Province ofTamarugal , in the Region ofTarapacâ 219
Allnex PR 30 Second Report of 5 Decemher 2006, Issued by the
Goverrunent, Decentralization and Regionalization
Commission onthe Second Constitutional Reading ofDraft
Law Creating the XV Region ofArica and Parinacota and
theProvince ofTamaru gal, in the Region ofTarapacâ 225 336
Annex PR31 Judgment - Case 719-2007 of 26 January 2007, Issued by
the Chi1ean Constitutional Court Regarding Draft Law
Creating the XV Region of Arica and Parinacota and the
Province ofTamarugal, in the Region ofTarapaca 233
Annex PR32 Law No. 20.175 of 23 March 2007, Law Creating the
XV Region of Arica and Parinacota and the Province of
Tamarugal, in the Region ofTarapaca 241
INTERNATIONAL INSTRU:MENTS
Annex PR33 Comp1ementary Convention to the Declaration of
Sovereignty on the Two-Hundred-Mi1e Maritime Zone, of
4 December 1954 247
Annex PR34 Convention on the System of Sanctions, of 4 December
1954
255
Annex PR35 Convention on Measures on the Surveillance and Control
of the Maritime Zones of the Signatory Countries, of 4
December 1954 263
Annex PR36 Convention on the GrantinofPermits for the Exploitation
of the Resources of the South Pacifie, of 4 December 1954 269
Annex PR37 Convention on the Ordinary Annual Meeting of the
Permanent Commission for the South Pacifie, of 4
December 1954 277
Annex PR38 Agreement on the Conservation ofMarkers on the Common
Boundary between Peru and Chi1eof 6 March 1997 283
Annex PR39 Agreement between the Government of the Republic
of Peru and the Government of the Republic of Chi1e on
the Promotion and ReciprocalProtection of Investments,
Signed on 2 February 2000 289
Annex PR40 Peru-UnitedStatesofAmerica Trade PromotionAgreement,
Signed on 12April 2006 293
Annex PR41 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of Peru and the Govemment of the Republic of
Chile, Signed on 22 August 2006 297
Annex PR42 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic
ofPeru, Signed on 29 May 2008 303
Annex PR43 Free Trade Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of Peru and the Govemment of the Republic of
Singapore, Signed on 29 May 2008 307 337
Annex PR 44 Free Trade Agreement between the Govemment of the
Republic of Peru and the Goverrunent of the People's
Republic of China, Signed on 28 April 2009 311
ACTS AND REUTED DO CU I\IIENTS
Annex PR 45 Dccd ofTransfer of Tacna of28 August 1929 317
Anncx PR 46 Memorandum No. 1 of26 October 1929 on Differences in
Concordia, Laguna Blanca and Visviri Sent by Peruvian
Delegate Federico Basadre to Chilean Delegate Enrique
Brieba 323
Anltcx PR 47 General Summary - Discussion on the Boundary Line, in
Chilean Delegate Enrique Brieba's Memoir 331
Anllcx PR 48 General Remarks - Section E "Boundary Markers" 335
AltllcX PR 49 Instructions for the Location of Boundary Markers on the
Bonndary Poligonal M - L - K - J -1- H, Frias·Novi6n
SubC-ommiss io~ Issued on 15 January 1930 by Peruvian
Delegate Federico Basadre and Chilean Delegate Enrique
339
Bricba
Annex PR 50 Instructions 19 and 19a Conceming Boundary Markers at
the Arc of Concordia - Moyano-Tirado Suh-Commission
- Issued on 22 May 1930 by Peruvian Delegate Federico
Basadre and Chilean DelegateEmique Brieha 345
Annex PR 51 Act of 5 August 1930 351
Annex PR52 Rules of Activities, General Provisions and Working Han
of the Peru-Chile Permanent Joint Commission of Limits
of9 November 1999 359
Altnex PR 53 Minutes of the Sixth Ordinary Session of the Peru-Chile
Permanent Joint Commission of Limits of 24 January
2007 365
INTERNAT IONAL ORG ANIZATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES: RE CORDS,
DOCUMENTS AND ST ATEMENT S
Annex PR 54 Opening Speech by David Aguilar Cornejo, Minister of
Foreign AfTairs of Peru in the Second Conference on the
Exploitation and Conservation of the Marine Resources of
the South Pacifie of 1954 373 338
Annex PR55 Summary Records of the 171stMeeting of the International
Law Commission. Tapie: Law of the Sea - Regime of the
Territorial Sea 381
Annex PR56 Statement by Peruvian Delegate, Mr. Edwin Letts, in the
United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee of 29
November 1956 385
Annex PR57 Statement by Ecuadorian Delegate, Mr. Escudero, in the
United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee of 4
December 1956 391
Annex PR58 Statement by Chilean Delegate, Mr. Melo Lecaros, in the
United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee of 12
December 1956 395
Annex PR59 Speech by Dr. Alberto Ulloa, Head of the Peruvian
Delegation tathe 1958GenevaConference, General Debate
of the First Committee ReId on 5 March 1958 399
Annex PR60 Speech by Dr. Enrique Garcia Sayan, Peruvian Delegate, at
the General Debate of the Second Committee ReId on 13
March 1958 405
Annex PR61 Informal Proposal NG7/6 of 24 April 1978 presented by
Peru in the Negotiating Group Number 7 in the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 413
Annex PR62 Statement by Peruvian Delegate in the 5th Meeting of the
Negotiating Group Number 7 of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea of25 April 1978 417
Annex PR63 Informal Proposal NG7/14of8 May 1978presented by Peru
in the Negotiating Group Number 7 in the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 421
Annex PR64 Informal Proposal NG7/34 of 6 April 1979 presented by
Peru in the Negotiating Group Number 7 in the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 425
Annex PR65 Statement by Peruvian Delegate in the 3J1hMeeting of the
Negotiating Group Number 7 of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea of6 April 1979 429
Annex PR66 Statement by Peruvian Delegate in the 3gthMeeting of the
Negotiating Group Number 7 of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea of6 April 1979 433
Annex PR67 Informal Proposal NG7/36 of 11 April 1979 presented by
Peru and Mexico in the Negotiating Group Number 7 in the
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea 437 339
Annex PR68 InformaI ProposaI NG7/36/Rev.l of18Apri11979 presented
by Peru and Mexico in the Negotiating Group Number 7 in
the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea 441
Annex PR69 Statement by Peruvian Delegate in the 41'1Meeting of
the Negotiating Group 7 of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea of 18April 1979 445
Annex PR 70 Statement by Peruvian Delegate in the SQlhMeeting of
the Negotiating Group 7 of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea of23 August 1979 449
Annex PR 71 Statement by Ambassador Alfonso Arias-Schreiber, Head
of the Peruvian Delegation ta the Third United Nations
nd
Conference on the Law of the Sea, Eleventh Session, 182
Plenary Meeting of30 Apri11982 453
Annex PR 72 Declaration made by Chile Upon Ratification of the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 25
August 1997 457
Annex PR 73 Report of the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations to
the General Assembly on the Oceans and the Law of the
Sea Held on 5 October 1998 463
PRESIDENTIAL AND DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE
Annex PR 74 Fax F-330 of 27 January 2000 from the President of the
Peruvian Section of the Permanent Commission for the
South Pacific (CPPS) to the Secretary-General of such
Organization. 469
Annex PR 75 Note (GAB) No. 6/23 of 10 April 2001, from the President
of the Council ofMinisters and Minister of Foreign Affairs
ofPeru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile 473
Annex PR 76 Note No. 1022 of 11 April 2001, from the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of Chile to the President of the Council of
Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru 477
Annex PR 77 Note (GAB) No. 6/25 of 12 April 2001, from the President
of the Council ofMinisters and Minister of Foreign Affairs
ofPeru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs ofChile 481
Annex PR 78 Note (GAB) No. 6-4/154 of 31 October 2005, from the
Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru to the Ambassador of
Chile to Peru 485 340
Annex PR 79 Note (GAB) No. 6/3 of 10January 2007, from the Minister
ofForeign Affairs ofPeru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
ofChile 493
Annex PR80 Note (GAB) No. 6/4 of24 January 2007, from the Minister
ofForeign Affairs ofPeru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
ofChile 499
Annex PR 81 Letler of 9 June 2010 from His Excellency Alan Garcia,
President of the Republic of Peru to His Excellency Rafael
Correa Delgado, President of the Republic ofEcuador 503
OrHER Docm1ENTs
Annex PR82 Statements of President José Maria Velasco Ibarra,
Reproduced in Ecuadorian Journal El Comercio of 16
October 1952
511
Annex PR83 Statements of President José Maria Velasco Ibarra,
Reproducedin Peruvian Journal El Comercio of17 October
1952 515
Annex PR84 Interview to AndrésTownsend Ezcurrain Peruvian Journal
El Comercio of28 January 1979 519
Annex PR85 Article by Luis Alberto Sanchez Entitled "Sobre las 200
millas", Published in Peruvian Journal Expreso of 23
October 1982 523
Annex PR86 Minutes of the III Meeting behveen Representatives of the
Maritime Authorities ofChile andPeru from 16to 18April
527
2002
Annex PR87 FaxNo. 5 of27 January 2003 from the Directorate General
of the Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine of the
Chilean Navy (Directemar) to the General Director of
Captaincies and Coastguards of the Peruvian Navy 533
Annex PR88 Final Minutes of Understanding of the XII Bilateral
Meeting ofthe Commanders-in-Chiefofthe FrontierNaval
Zones ofChile and Peru from 21to 25 July 2003
537
Annex PR89 LetlerNo. 2230/25 of3 September 2003, from the Chiefof
the General Staff of the Chilean Navy to the Chief of the
General Staff of the Peruvian Navy 541
Annex PR90 Minutes of the IIIMeeting of the General Staffs of the
Chilean Navy and the Peruvian Navy of 16April 2004 549
Annex PR 91 Minutes of the IV Meeting of the General Staffs and the
XIX Bilateral Intelligence Meeting behveen the Chilean
Navy and the Peruvian Navy from 15to 16June 2006 553 INDEX OF VOLUME III
MAPS AND FIGURES
Chapter II
Figure R·2.1 Variance in the Boundary positions taken by Messrs. Basadre
and Brieba 3
Figure R·2.2 Ceremony at Hito No. 9 (faken from Mf. Brieha'sMemoir) 5
Figure R·2.3 Map of the hùtial Sector of the Peru-Chile Land Boundary.
Sketch-map IX (Prepared and signed by Enrique Brieba) 7
Figure R-2.4 Map of the Second Sector of the Peru-Chile Land Boundary.
Sketch-map X (Prepared and signed byEnrique Brieba) 9
Figure R·2.5 Map of the Third Sector of the Peru-Chi!e Land Boundary.
Sketch-map XI (Prepared and signed by Enrique Brieba) 11
Figure R·2.6 Map of the Fourth Sector of the Peru-Chile Land Boundary.
Sketch-map XII (Prepared and signed by Enrique Brieba) 13
Figure R·2.7 Map of the Fifth Sector of the Peru-Chlle Land Boundary.
Sketch-map XIII(Prepared and signed by Enrique Brieba) 15
Figure R·2.8 "The Boundary on the Beach" (Taken from Mr. Brieba's
Memoir) 17
Figure R·2.9 Point 266 as the Starting-Point for the Peru-Chile Land
Boundary 19
Figure R·2.10 General Map of the Departments of Tacna and Arica, as they
have been divided (From Volume 1of Mr. Brieba'sMemoir) 21
Figure R·2.11 Map issued by Chile's Railway Department, Ministry of
Promotion: 1929 23
Figure R·2.l2 Official Map of Arica: 1965 (Published by the Instituto
Geogràfico Militar de Chile). Arica 1800 - 7000 25 342
Figure R-2.13 Official Map of Arica: 1966 (Published by the Instituto
Geognifico Militar de Chile). Arica 1815-7015 27
Figure R-2.14 Rada y Puerto de Arica: 1989 (Excerpt [rom Chilean Nautical
Chart 101) 29
Figure R-2.15 Rada y Puerto de Arica: 1998 (Excerpt [rom Chilean Nautical
Chart llll) 29
Figure R-2.16 Physical Map of Chile: 1955 (Published by the Instituto
Geognifico Militar de Chile) 31
Figure R-2.17 Map of Chile: 1961 (Published by the Instituto G eognifico
Militar de Chile) 33
Figure R-2.18 Map of Chile: 1963 (Published by the Instituto Geognifico
Militar de Chile) 35
Figure R-2.19 Monograph. 2 July 1992 (Prepared by the Chilean Delegation as
part oftheir inspection of Boundary Marker No. 2) 37
Figure R-2.20 Satellite Image Showing the Base of the Destroyed Peruvian
Light Tower 39
Figure R-2.21 Photograph of the Base of the Destroyed Peruvian Light Tower
and Its Alignment with the Chilean Light Tower 39
Chapter III
Figure R-3.1 Maritime Boundary Scenario where point IV is redundant
Maritime Boundary Scenario where point IV is unnecessary
Maritime Boundary Scenario where point IV protects island A 43
Chapter IV
Figure R-4.1 La Comisi6n Permanente deI Pacffico Sur (Red Internacional
deI Libro. Santiago de Clnle, 1993, p. 33) 47
Figure R. 4.2 Chile's Maritime Boundary Claim Delimits Exclusively
Peruvian Waters 49
Figure R-4.3 Chile's Erroneous Point 1 on its 2000 Baseline 51
Figure R-4.4 Physical and Touristic Map ofChile: 1980 53
Figure R-4.5 Amérique du Sud: 2007 (Published by Institut Geographique
National de France) 55
Figure R-4.6 Map published by the Flanders Marine Institute: 2009 57
Figure R-4.7 Rada y Puerto de Arica: 1998 (Chilean Nautical Chart 1111) 59 343
Figure R-4.8 Chile's Hydrographie Service Catalogue: 2003 61
Figure R-4.9 Political Map ofPeru: 1970 (Published by the Instituto Nacional
de Planificaci6n deI Peru) 63
Figure R-4.10 Hidrographic Map of Peru: 1970 (Published by the Instituto
Nacional de Planificaci6n deI Peru) 65
Figure R-4.11 Peril: Una Mieva Geografia (By Emilio Ramera, Libreria
Studium, VoLl, 1973, p. 37) 67
Figure R-4.12 Atlas Bdsico Universal y deI PerU (Editorial Bruno, 1982, p.
61) & Atlas Bdsico Universal y deI PerU (Editorial Bruno,
1982, p. 57) 69
Figure R-4.13 Gran Atlas Geogrdfico deI PerUy deI Munda (A.F.A. Editores
SA 1991,p. 192) 71
Figure R-4.14 Map Published by Peru's Ministry ofFisheries: 1973 73
Figure R-4.15 Political Map of Peru: 1989 (Published by the Instituto
Geognifico Nacional deI Peru) 75
Figure R-4.16 Hidrographic Map of Peru: 1989 (Published by the Instituto
Geognifico Nacional deI Peru) 77
Figure R-4.17 The Peruvian Sea and its Limits (Faura Gaig, Guillermo S :El
Mar Peruano y sus limites,Lima, Amauta, 1977) 79
Figure R. 4.18 The Peruvian Sea and its Limits. (Ferrero Costa, Eduardo: El
Mievo Derecho deI Mar. El PerUy las 200 millas, Lima, Fondo
Editorial de laontificia Universidad Cat6lica deI Peru, 1979) 81
Chapter V
Figure R-5.1 The Equidistance Methodology 85
Figure R-5.2 Proportionality Test applied to the Equidistance Methodology 87
Figure R-5.3 Inequitable Cut-off effect caused by Chile's Delimitation
Claim & ProportionalityTest applied to Chile's Delimitation
Claim 89
Figure R-5.4 Guyana- Suriname Continental ShelfBoundary Award: 2007 91
Figure R-5.5 Cameroon - Nigeria ICJ Judgment: 2002 93 344
Chapter VI
Figure R-6.1 Argentina - Chile Boundary Agreement: 1984 97
Figure R-6.2 Peru's Maritime Boundary Claim Allows Chile Direct
Access to its own Maritime Space 99
Figur e R-6.3 Chile'sMaritime Boundary Claim Blocks Peru from Direct
Access ta its own Maritime Space 101 LIST OF DOCUMENTS DEPOSITED
WITH THE REGISTRY
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF PERu
1. Circular Letter No. (D) 2-6-NI27 of 23 September 1947, from the Secretary
General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru ta a Group of Peruvian
Embassies and :Missions
2. Official Letter(M): 5-4/166 of Il July 1952 from the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Peru ta the Ambassador of Peru ta Chile
3. Official Letter No. 5-12-1269of 13 October 1952, from the chargé d'affaires
a.i. of Peru ta Ecuador ta the :Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru
4. Official Letter No. 5-12-A/152 of 17 October 1952, from the chargé d'affaires
a.i. of Peru ta Ecuador ta the :Minister of Foreign Affairs ofPeru
5. Records of the Second 1954 Extraordinary Legislature of the Peruvian
Congress. 2nd Session Held on Thursday 5 :May 1955
6. Official Letter No. 5-4-Y/68 of Il July 1955, from the chargé d'affaires a.i.
of Peru ta Chile ta the Peruvian Minister of Foreign Affairs
7. :Ministerial Resolution No. 458 of 28 April 1961, Issued by the :Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Peru
8. Memorandum No. (1) - Il of 24 January 1968, from the Head of Borders
Department to the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Peru
9. Records of the 1993 Constituent Congress Regarding the Manner in Which
the :Maritime Domain Was Addressed in the Text of the Constitution 346
10. Directoral Resolution N° 0313-94/DCG of 23 September 1994, Approving the
Peruvian Positioning and Security Information System Issued by the :Ministry
of Defenee
11. Supreme Resolution No. 231-2001-RE of 28 May 2001, Submitting ta the
Congress of the Republic the Documentation Conceming Peru's Accession ta
the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
12. Official Letter RE (TRA) No. 3-0/74 of 30 :May 2001, from the President
of the Council of :Ministers and :Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru ta the
President of the Congress
13. Law No. 29189, Law Specifying Article 3 of Law No. 27415, Law on
Territorial Demarcation of the Province of Tacna, Department of Tacna
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF effiLE
14. Decree with Force of Law No. 2090 of 30 July 1930
15. SenateRecords ofDebates of the Congress ofChile. Session Number Twenty
First Held on 10 August 1954
16. DecreeNo.401 of6:May 1985PromulgatingtheTreaty ofPeaceandFriendship
between the Government of the Republic of Chile and the Government of the
Republic of Argentina
17. Decree No. 94 of Il April 1985 on the Prohibition of the Use of Trawling and
Fence Fishing Gears in the Indicated Areas and Abolishing the Decree that It
Indicates
18. Decree with Force of Law No. 2-18.715 of 9 June 1989 Determines the
Specific Limits of The Provinces of the Country
19. Decree No. 704 of 29 October 1990Amending Decree (M) No. 1.190 of 1976
that Organises the :Maritime Search and Rescue Service of Chile's Navy
20. Decree No. 430/91 of 28 September 1991, Establishing the Consolidated,
Co-ordinated and Systematized Text of Law No. 18.892 of 1989 and Its
Amendments, General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture 347
21. Message No. 372-353 of 21 October 2005 Addressed by the President of
the Republic of Chile, Ricardo Lagos, ta the Chilean Chamber of Deputies
Beginning the Process of Approval of Draft Law Creating the XV Region
of Arica and Parinacota and the Province of Tamarugal, in the Region of
Tarapaca
22. Bulletin No. 4048-06 of 13 November 2006, Instructions Given During the
General Discussion on the Draft Law Creating the XV Region of Arica and
Parinacota and the Province of Tamarugal, in the Region of Tarapacâ
23. SecondReportof5December2006,IssuedbytheGovernment,Decentralization
and Regionalization Commission on the Second Constitutional Reading of
Draft Law Creating the XV Region of Arica and Parinacota and the Province
of Tamarugal, in the Region of Tarapacâ
24. Judgment - Case 719-2007 of 26 January 2007, Issued by the Chilean
Constitutional Court Regarding Draft Law Creating the XV Region of Arica
and Parinacota and the Province of Tamarugal, in the Region of Tarapacâ
25. Law Nro. 20.175 of 23 March 2007. Law Creating the XV Region of Arica
and Parinacota and the Province of Tamarugal, in the Region of Tarapacâ
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
26. Agreement on the Conservation of Markers on the Common Boundary
between Peru and Chile of 6 March 1997
ACTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
27. Brieba, Emique. Memoria sobre los Limites entre Chile y Peru. Tomos 1, II
YIII: Estudio técnico y documentos. Santiago de Chile, Instituto Geografico
:Militar,931
28. Rules of Activities, General Provisions and Working Plan of the Peru-Chile
Permanent Joint Commission of Limits of 9 November 1999. 348
29. Minutes of the Sixth Ordinary Session of the Peru-Chile Permanent Joint
Commission of Limits of 24 January 2007
PRESIDENTIAL AND DIPLOMATIe CORRESPONDENCE
30. Fax F-330 of 27 January 2()()()from the President of the Peruvian Section of
the Permanent Commission for the South Pacifie (epPS) ta the Secretary
General of such Organization.
31. Note (GAB) No. 6/23 of 10 April 2001, from the President of the Council of
Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru ta the :Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
32. Note No. 1022 of Il April 2001, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
ta the President of the Council of :Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Peru
33. Note (GAB) No. 6/25 of 12 April 2001, from the President of the Council of
Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru ta the :Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Chile
34. Note (GAB) No. 6-4/154 of 31 October 2005, from the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Peru to the Ambassador of Chile to Peru
35. Note (GAB) No. 6/3 of 10 January 2007, from the :Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Peru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
36. Note (GAB) No. 6/4 of 24 January 2007, from the :Minister of Foreign Affairs
of Peru to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile
37. Letter of 9 June 2010 from His Excellency Alan Garcia, President of the
Republic of Peru to His Excellency Rafael Correa Delgado, President of the
Republic of Ecuador
OTHER DOCUMENfS
38. Statements of President José:MariaVelasco Ibarra, Reproduced in Ecuadorian
Journal El Comercio of 16 October 1952 349
39. Statements of President José Maria Velasco Ibarra, Reproduced in Peruvian
Journal El Comercio of 17 October 1952
40. Interview ta Andrés Townsend Ezcurra in Peruvian Journal El Comercio of
28 January 1979
41. Article by Luis Alberto Sanchez Entitled "Sobre las 200 millas", Published in
Peruvian Journal Expreso of 23 October 1982
42. :Minutes of the III Meeting between Representatives of the :Maritime
Authorities of Chile and Peru from 16 ta 18 April 2002
43. Fax No. 5 of 27 January 2003 from the Directorate General of the Maritime
Territory and Merchant :Marine of the Chilean Navy (Directemar) ta the
General Director of Captaincies and Coastguards of the Peruvian Navy
44. Final Minutes of Understanding of the XII Bilateral Meeting of the
Commanders-in-Chief of the Frontier Naval Zones of Chile and Peru from 21
to 25 July 2003
45. Letter No. 2230/25 of 3 September 2003, from the Chief of the General Staff
of the Chilean Navy to the Chief of the General Staff of the Peruvian Navy
46. :Minutes of the III Meeting of the General Staffs of the Chilean Navy and the
Peruvian Navy of 16 Abril2004
47. :Minutes of the IV Meeting of the General Staffs and the XIX Bilateral
Intelligence Meeting between the Chilean Navy and the Peruvian Navy from
15 to 16 June 2006
Reply of Peru