Maritime Boundary Delineation

Defining maritime boundaries is a complex task and the source of much controversy.
Hence, it is not surprising that numerous nations around the world are involved in
maritime disputes. In 2010, for instance, Latin America had eight active and
approximately 14 inactive marine boundary disputes.[1] As part of this framework, it is
relevant to discuss how maritime borders are defined in the modern world.

International institutions often serve as facilitators of peace and order, and for the
purpose of maritime regulation, the United Nations (UN) has become the leading
authority.[2] In 1958, the UN conducted the first of three conventions on maritime law
and set the tone for international regulation. The UN conducted two subsequent
conventions in 1960 and 1982, resulting in the United Nations Convention of the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS), a comprehensive document defining the legal use and demarcation
of national and international waters.[3] The UNCLOS includes Article 15:
Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two
States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial
sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is
measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason
of historic title, or other special circumstances, to delimit the territorial seas of the two States
in a way which is at variance therewith.[4]

Article 15 provides guidance on how to delineate boundaries between nations whose

baselines are adjacent to one another, which is precisely the case of Peru and Chiles
coastal areas.

The definitions of territorial sea limits were of particular interest during the Peru v.
Chile court hearing. According to UNCLOS, territorial waters are defined as the area
starting from the baseline out to 12 nautical miles into the sea where countries have full
control and sovereignty. The baseline is the low-water line along the coast, or simply
the shore.[5] The continuous zone is the sea area beyond the territorial waters that
extend an additional 12 nautical miles where countries chose whether to control
regulatory items such as customs and immigration. Finally, the exclusive economic
zone (EEZ) is the area extending 200 nautical miles from the baseline towards the sea,
where the coastal nation has exclusive rights to the available natural resources.[6]

Peru and Chile Maritime Boundary Historical Background

Peru and Chile have a longstanding history of territorial disputes and agreements that
directly influenced their most recent maritime disagreements. Dating back to the 19th
century, the War of the Pacific was fought among Chile, Bolivia, and Peru. The war
started in 1879 with the alliance of Peru and Bolivia against Chile over the mining
industry along shared territory, and ended in 1883 with the Treaty of Ancon defining
national land borders and benefiting Chile with territorial gain.[7]An effort to resolve
subsequent disagreements between the new nations resulted in the 1929 Lima Treaty,
which defined their borders. Peru and Chile agreed that El Punto de la Concordia was
the last boundary point between the two nations before reaching coastal waters; the
treaty did not refer to maritime boundaries. Consequently, in 1947, Chile and Peru
unilaterally proclaimed maritime rights extending 200 nautical miles from the baseline
but did not delineate the configurations of their respective maritime borders.[8]

In 1952, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru signed the Santiago Declaration, reserving the right
for maritime sovereignty across an area extending 200 nautical miles; but once again,
these nations did not define their maritime borders.[9] In 1954, Chile and Peru
participated in the Special Maritime Zone Agreement in which the main goal was to
avoid sanctions for small fishing boats crossing maritime boundaries unaware of their
position in the ocean; therefore, it created a buffer zone along the maritime boundary
which at the time Peru and Chile referred to as the parallel extending 12 miles beyond
the coastal line.[10]

Between 1968 and 1969, Peru and Chile made official arrangements to build
lighthouses at the point at which the common border reaches the sea, near boundary
marker number one.[11] For practical purposes, both countries used this parallel as the
demarcation of fishing waters. In 1986, Peru invited Chile to officially delineate the
maritime boundary between the two nations. In turn, Chile declined to negotiate,
claiming the maritime border had already been stipulated in previous treaties.
Unsatisfied with Chiles reluctance to negotiate, Peru decided to appeal to the
international justice system.[12]

Peru v. Chile

On January 16, 2008, Peru brought Chile to the principal judicial body of the UN, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve the dispute. Peru filed a petition against
Chile requesting the official delimitation of the maritime border between both nations
starting at Concordia and the recognition of its EEZ, whom Chile did not acknowledge.

Peru argued that its maritime boundary had not been officially established in any of the
previous international instruments used between the two nations. It claimed that the
Declaration of 1952 and the Proclamation of 1954 only applied to artesian fishing
practices, and did not prove that both countries had agreed on a maritime border. Since
there was no formal agreement between the countries, Peru argued that the method of
finding a median line applied to its case as stipulated in Article 15 of the UNCLOS.
Additionally, Peru asked that the maritime border start from El Punto de la Concordia as
the baseline, rather than at Marker No. 1, which is a point farther inland.[13]

Chile argued that the events of 1952 and 1954 were official treaties and, according to
the Law of the Sea, the median line would not apply since official agreements were
established. Chile noted that the principle of stability of boundaries prevent[ed] any
attempt to invite the Court to redraw a boundary that ha[d] already been
agreed.[14] Furthermore, Chile maintained that Marker No. 1 was the first point from
which the maritime border was drawn and should remain that way.[15]

Geopolitical Representation
After 1986, the maritime border dispute between Peru and Chile gained popular
momentum and both countries started to print maps with their respective claimed
maritime boundaries. The geopolitical representation of each country exemplified the
concept of picking and choosing. Noel Parker and Rebecca Adler-Nissen explains,
States do not choose whether to have a border or not. Yet they have a range of
possibilities when it comes to how they inscribe their borders.[16] To legitimize their
maritime boundaries, Peru and Chile produced and distributed maps depicting maritime
boarders according to their interpretationeither perpendicular to the shore or matching
the parallel of latitude line respectively.[17]

Peru and Chile Fisheries

A critical point of contention between Peru and Chile was the distribution of natural
resources in the coastal area of both countries. According to the UN, Chile and Peru
rank among the top ten fishery producers in the world.[18] The UNs Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) provides statistics for the distribution of highly migratory
species, indicating that the deep waters of Peru and Chile are abundant in tuna.
Additionally, sardines and anchovies are at the core of their fishing industries.
Anchovies reproduce year-round and are predominantly found between 2050 nautical
miles offshore, while sardines are found between 2080 nautical miles.[19] The
maritime dispute threatened Chiles fishing industry, particularly artesian practices, and
offered potential gains to Peru.

ICJ Proceedings and Ruling

On January 27, 2014, the ICJ came to its judgment. To determine a maritime border
between Peru and Chile, the ICJ had to decide first on the location of the boundarys
starting point. Peru claimed that El Punto De La Concordia, defined in 1929, should be
the starting point for the maritime boundary. Nevertheless, the ICJ decided that the
lighthouse arrangements of 19681969 provided enough evidence that the initial point
was the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1
with the low-water line.[20]

As part of the ruling strategy, the ICJ took into consideration the agreement of 1954,
validating that the treaty recognized a practical maritime border between the two
nations, but that such treaty did not stipulate the border run 200 nautical miles into the
ocean. The ICJ also accepted Chiles claims that the lighthouse provided evidence that
Peru agreed with the border running along the parallel. Additionally, the ICJ evaluated
the economic and environmental implications of the claim, and decided that in the
context of the 1954 treaty, the border pertained to small-scale fishing predominantly
from the shoreline out to 60 nautical miles. Finally, it concluded that the border starts at
Marker No. 1 and extends 80 nautical miles from the marker into the ocean along the
parallel of latitude until it reaches Point A.[21] From this point, the boundary is the
medium line between two selected coastal points (one on the Peruvian coast, another
on the Chilean coast) until this line intersects Chiles EEZ (Point B).[22] Additionally, the
ICJ recognized the 200 nautical miles EEZ for Peru, which Chile considered high seas
(Point C).[23]
Conclusion

Professor Rodrigo Nieto-Gomez, an associate professor of Geopolitics at the Naval

Postgraduate School, offers a valuable perspective in creating and defining borders:
borders are often conflicts frozen in time; they are geopolitical constructs that
materialize in territories of linear configuration . . . with management, legal, and
membership implications.[24] Peru v. Chile is a significant example of how borders
represent snapshots of conflict engineered with artificial lines. It also demonstrates that
in modern times, nations do not have to resort to armed conflict to resolve territorial
disputes.

Bibliography

Dundua, Nugzat. Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries Between Adjacent States. United

Nations The Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship Programme, 2007-
2006. http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellow
s_papers/dundua_0607_georgia.pdf.

Mares, David R., and David Scott Palmer. Power, Institutions, and Leadership in War
and Peace: Lessons from Peru and Ecuador, 1995-1998. Reprint edition. S.l.: University
of Texas Press, 2013.

Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile). International Court of Justice, January 27,

2014. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf.

Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) Summary of the Judgment of 27 January 2014.

International Court of Justice, January 27, 2014. http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/137/17958.pdf.

Parker, Noel, and Rebecca Adler-Nissen. Picking and Choosing the Sovereign
Border: A Theory of Changing State Bordering Practices. Geopolitics 17, no. 4
(October 1, 2012): 77396. doi:10.1080/14650045.2012.660582.

Resumed Review Conference on the Agreement Relating to the Conservation and

Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. United
Nations, May 24,
2010. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/reviewconf/FishStocks_EN
_A.pdf.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10,

1982. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf.

War of the Pacific | South American History. Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed

January 18, 2015. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/437568/War-of-the-
Pacific.

Zuzunaga, Jorge. Some Shared Fish Stocks of South Eastern Pacific. Food and
Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations. Accessed February 10,
2014. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4652e/y4652e0h.htm.
[1] David R. Mares and David S Palmer, Power, Institutions, and Leadership in War and
Peace Lessons from Peru and Ecuador, 1995/1998, 1st ed. (University of Texas Press,
2012), 8, 1011.

[2] Mares and Palmer, Power, Institute, and Leadership, 4.

[3] Nugzar Dundua, Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries Between Adjacent States,

The Nippon Foundation of Japan Fellowship Programme, United Nations, accessed on
10 February
2010, http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellow
s_papers/dundua_0607_georgia.pdf.

[4] United Nations, Oceans & Law of the Sea, United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, 10 December
1982, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_conve
ntion.htm.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Encyclopedia Britannica Online, s.v. War of the Pacific, accessed 17 March
2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/437568/War-of-the-Pacific.

[8] International Court of Justice, Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) Judgment, 27

January 2014, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf.