The International Court of Justice is the main judicial section of the United Nations, established in 1945, by the UN Charter (Ar. 7 UN Charter). The court has been serving as a legal counsel for the members of the UN. A state can acquire aid from the ICJ on two occasions; either by settling a legal difference between two parties, known as a contentious case, or by providing advisory opinions to legal questions that were given to by one of the six UN organs, often referred to as an advisory proceeding. When a state enters a case hearing, it is obligated to accept its jurisdiction by the court in several ways. One of them being having to agree to submit the dispute to the court. Since the establishment of the court, there have been countless cases referring to all types of disagreements. Ranging from nuclear disarmament cases or towards a more minor dispute regarding the construction of a road that could have an effect to a neighbor state. Moreover, this paper will specifically discuss the maritime disputes concerning the republic of Peru as well the republic of Chile, also known as the Chilean-Peruvian maritime dispute. An issue that goes back to the 19th century concerning a territorial dispute.
This disagreement dates back to 1873, when the War on the Pacific Ocean commenced. Chile had declared war on both Peru and Bolivia due to political dispute over a part of the Atacama Desert; and later on managing to emerge victorious. Thus ending in the annexation of provinces, such as Arica and Tacna from Peru and Bolivia’s Antofagasta. Peru and Bolivia not only suffered the loss of property but also the loss of thousands of people and the nations collapsed economically for decades afterwards. Causalities came to an end in 1883 when Chile and Peru signed a peace treaty known as the Treaty of Ancon. Amongst the agreements of the treaty; a plebiscite was to be held ten years after the war, which would essentially allow the people of the conquered cities to decide on which country they wanted to belong to. However, Chile failed to hold the vote and in 1929, with the interference of the Americans, the city of Tacna was awarded to Peru and Arica to Chile. Although it appeared as though everything was solved, during 1980s, Peruvian diplomats came to the realization that even though land borders were settled, maritime boundaries weren’t. The dispute was revolved mainly around an area at sea that was between the parallel that crosses the end point of the land border between the two countries. The two, including Ecuador, signed a “treaty” named The Santiago Declaration of 1952; which would award each sovereignty a distance of 200 nautical miles (1 nm=1.8 km) from their respective coastlines.
“II) In the light of these circumstances, the Governments of Chile, Ecuador and Peru proclaim as a norm of their international maritime policy that they each possess exclusive sovereignty and jurisdiction over the sea along the coasts of their respective countries to a minimum distance of 200 nautical miles from these coasts.”
This did not play out well in the end as it was seen more in Chile’s favor rather than an equal award. The method employed to demarcate the boundaries was the parallel of latitude method. Essentially meaning that Chile would benefit from it as they obtained a larger water area; therefore allowing them greater jurisdiction. Whereas Peru favored the equidistant proposal as it would sanction an equal amount of control. Therefore, on the 16th of January 2008, Peru sent in an application to the International Court of Justice asking to redo the maritime delimitation. One of the arguments that were made in the written proceedings to the court was that Peru and Chile, had never actually agreed on certain and specific water boundaries and that it was merely a fishing agreement.
"To date Peru and Chile have not concluded a specific maritime delimitation treaty pursuant to the relevant rules of international law. The mention of parallel 18°21 '00" as the maritime boundary between the two States is, therefore, without legal basis. "14
In the written proceedings from Peru, there were roughly two main requests to the International Court of Justice. One was to re-determine the limits of the maritime boundaries; and second was to include the outer triangle to fit its jurisdiction. However, since there was a previous agreement on the maritime boundaries of the two states, stated in The Santiago Declaration of 1952; Chile respectively asked the court to refrain from changing any of the prior settlements. A basic principle of civil and international law known as the pacta sunt servanda, meaning “agreements must be kept.” Besides the general known reason for expanding territorial areas, seeking power, and essentially being the more dominant state amongst all other neighboring ones, this dispute between Peru and Chile had a major effect on their economies and their relations between Chile, Peru and Bolivia.
The Court started its investigation by looking at a series of agreements between Peru and Chile such as the 1947 unilateral Proclamations which states that both claimed a 200 nautical miles exclusive maritime zone of each coast, the 1952 Santiago Declaration on the Maritime Zone and related agreements that were negotiated specifically the 1954 Agreement about the Special Maritime Frontier Zone. The ICJ took into account that the agreements before 1954 showed that there was an evolving understanding between the two Parties and it considered the 1954 agreement act and the strength of its implied agreement. Next, the Court examined the nature of the maritime boundary that was established by tacit agreement, where parties give their silent agreement and no objections are made. Since the 1947 Proclamations and 1952 Declaration discussed both the waters above the sea floor and the sea floor, not differentiating between the two different maritime forms. The Court decided that the agreed boundary was merely a single maritime boundary applicable solely to the water column, the sea floor and its subsoil.
After approximately 8 years, rather than awarding the discussed maritime to one country, the ICJ made a comprise by accepting some Chile’s argument as well as some of Peru’s. They agreed that the Santiago Declaration and coming conventions amounted to an agreement on the maritime boundary and that the boundary starts with Hito 1, however only for the first 80 nautical miles . Thus, it approved of Peru’s claim and drew them a new boundary that covers the southwestward and at the same time allowed Chile to hang on to its inshore waters, where most of the fish was. This lead to Peru winning about 21,000 out of 38,000 square km that they disputed for. The decision was more than fair since it was less than Peru had wanted and not as bad as Chile feared. Some Peruvians were not entirely happy that the ICJ didn't accept their full claim, nonetheless, for the first time the country has won a battle against Chile and it did so peaceful, legally and through diplomacy.
The major impact of the economic income is clearly visible in regards to the water resources. The Peru Current, also known as the Humboldt Current, brings numerous benefactors to the states nearby. Peru and Chile are roughly controlling 18-20% of the worlds fishing harvest; such as anchovies and tuna. Another benefit from this current is the excrement of seabirds and bats, which could be used as fertilizer; this is known as guano. It is clear that both Peru and Chile somewhat depended on this agreement economically. However, Chile already had what it needed, in terms of the maritime boundary, whereas the representatives of Peru felt the need to take this matter into the hands of the International Court of Justice. Their grudge that they held as a result of the War of the Pacific hindered them from working constructively with their neighbours.
On the other hand, it was not merely the economic purpose that drove these two states to dispute for countless decades. Ever since the War on the Pacific, Peru just wanted a win and both countries viewed one another badly. Peruvians saw Chileans as abusive and arrogant while Chileans saw Peruvians as whiners. In the past two decades, their relation has already improved tremendously. Peru and Child are partners in the Pacific Alliance, a Latin American trade union consisting of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. This has only increased investments between them. President of Peu, Ollanta Humala said, “ The end of the dispute will allow us to begin a new stage in our relations with Chile.” At last, moving on with the legacy of the 19th century war was an advantage for both countries. All thanks to the court’s capacity to equally settle border quarrels prevents the further compromising of international relations. This is a prime example that countries should seek to rectify before the ICJ in order to feasibly create more stability and cooperation between countries or regions.