Links

Site search
Document search
Contact

The Court

History
Members of the Court
Presidency
Chambers and Committees
Judges ad hoc
How the Court Works
Financial Assistance to Parties
Annual Reports

The Registry

Registrar
Organizational Chart of the Registry
Texts governing the Registry
Library of the Court
Employment
Judicial Fellowship Programme
Internships
Procurement

Cases

List of All Cases
Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders

Basic Documents

Charter of the United Nations
Statute of the Court
Rules of Court
Practice Directions
Other Texts

Jurisdiction

Contentious Jurisdiction
Advisory Jurisdiction

Press Room

Press releases
Calendar
Media Services
Multimedia
Frequently Asked Questions

Practical Information

Directions
Visits
Basic Toolkit
Links
Frequently Asked Questions

Publications

Introduction

Permanent Court of International Justice

Series A: Collection of Judgments (1923-1930)
Series B: Collection of Advisory Opinions (1923-1930)
Series A/B: Collection of Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions (from 1931)
Series C: Acts and documents relating to Judgments and Advisory Opinions given by the Court / Pleadings, Oral Arguments and Documents
Series D: Acts and Documents concerning the organization of the Court
Series E: Annual Reports
Series F: General Indexes
Other documents


Français

Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)

Overview of the case

On 16 January 2008, Peru filed an Application instituting proceedings against Chile concerning a dispute in relation to “the delimitation of the boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in the Pacific Ocean, beginning at a point on the coast called Concordia . . . the terminal point of the land boundary established pursuant to the Treaty . . . of 3 June 1929”, and also to the recognition in favour of Peru of a “maritime zone lying within 200 nautical miles of Peru’s coast, and thus appertaining to Peru, but which Chile considers to be part of the high seas”.

In its Judgment of 27 January 2014, the Court examined whether, as claimed by Chile, there was an agreed maritime boundary extending 200 nautical miles from the Parties’ respective coasts. After analysing the proclamations and declarations of Peru and Chile (1947 Proclamations and 1952 Santiago Declaration), as well as later agreements and arrangements adopted by Peru, Chile and Ecuador, the Court concluded that the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement acknowledged that a maritime boundary already existed, although that text did not state when and by what means that boundary had been agreed upon. The Court therefore considered that the Parties’ express acknowledgment of the existence of a maritime boundary could only reflect a tacit agreement they had reached earlier, and which was “cemented” by the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement. Based on an assessment of all of the relevant evidence presented to it with regard to the agreed maritime boundary between the Parties, the Court concluded that the said boundary was an all-purpose maritime boundary and extended to a distance of 80 nautical miles along the parallel from its starting-point.

Having concluded that an agreed single maritime boundary existed between the Parties, and that this boundary started at the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low-water line, and continued for 80 nautical miles along that parallel, the Court applied the three-stage methodology it usually employs to determine the course of the maritime boundary from that point on. First, the Court constructs a provisional equidistance line unless there are compelling reasons preventing it from doing so. Second, it considers whether there are any relevant circumstances which may call for an adjustment of that line to achieve an equitable result. Third, the Court conducts a disproportionality test in which it assesses whether the effect of the line, as adjusted, is such that the parties’ respective shares of the relevant area are markedly disproportionate to the lengths of their relevant coasts.

The Court concluded that the maritime boundary between the Parties would start at the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1 with the low-water line, and extend for 80 nautical miles along that parallel of latitude to Point A. From that point, it would run along the equidistance line until it reached the 200-nautical-mile limit measured from the Chilean baselines (Point B). After that point, since the 200-nautical-mile projections of the Parties’ coasts no longer overlapped, the maritime boundary would run along the 200-nautical-mile limit measured from the Chilean baselines to Point C, where the 200-nautical-mile limits of the Parties’ maritime entitlements intersected. In view of the circumstances of the case, the Court defined the course of the maritime boundary between the Parties without determining the precise geographical co-ordinates. It recalled that it had not been asked to do so in the Parties’ final submissions. The Court therefore expected that the Parties would determine these co-ordinates in accordance with the Judgment, in the spirit of good neighbourliness. On 25 March 2014, Peru and Chile approved the co-ordinates of their maritime boundary.


This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Written proceedings

Memorial of Peru

20 March 2009
Available in:
English French

Reply of Peru

9 November 2010
Available in:
English French

Rejoinder of Chile

11 July 2011
Available in:
English French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2012/27

Public sitting held on Monday 3 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/28

Public sitting held on Tuesday 4 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/29

Public sitting held on Tuesday 4 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/30

Public sitting held on Thursday 6 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/31

Public sitting held on Friday 7 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/32

Public sitting held on Friday 7 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/33

Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/34

Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/35

Public sitting held on Friday 14 December 2012, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2012/36

Public sitting held on Friday 14 December 2012, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 31 March 2008

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
English French Bilingual

Judgments

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2014/1

Summary of the Judgment of 27 January 2014
Available in:
English French

Press releases

Press release 2008/1

16 January 2008
Peru institutes proceedings against Chile with regard to a dispute concerning maritime delimitation between the two States
Available in:
English French

Press release 2008/6

1 April 2008
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2010/11

28 April 2010
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court authorizes the submission of a Reply by Peru and a Rejoinder by Chile, and fixes time-limits for the filing of these pleadings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/15

22 March 2012
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 3 to Friday 14 December 2012
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/35

23 November 2012
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Note to members of the Diplomatic Corps, the press and the public - Closure of the accreditation and admission procedures
Available in:
English French

Press release 2012/37

14 December 2012
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Conclusion of the public hearings - Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
English French

Press release 2013/40

13 December 2013
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Monday 27 January 2014 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
English French

Press release 2014/2

27 January 2014
Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - The Court determines the course of the single maritime boundary between Peru and Chile
Available in:
English French

© International Court of Justice 2017-2020 – All rights reserved.