Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation
A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation by Fietta, Stephen; Cleverly, Robin (24th March 2016)

Part B Commentary on Judgments and Awards in Maritime Boundary Delimitation Disputes, 22 Peru v. Chile (Judgment of the International Court of Justice, 27 January 2014)

From: A Practitioner’s Guide to Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Stephen Fietta, Robin Cleverly

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved.date: 08 December 2019

Subject(s):
Coastal states — Delimitation — Straits — Territorial sea — UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea)

This chapter looks in detail at a case which dealt with a dispute between Peru and Chile in relation to the course of their maritime boundary in the South Pacific Ocean. The coastlines of Peru and Chile are adjacent. Peru argued that no prior agreed maritime boundary existed between the two countries and, in its Application, requested the court to plot a boundary line using the equidistance method in order to achieve an equitable result. After describing the case, the chapter looks at the significance of it for international law. This is the first decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognizing the existence of a maritime boundary established by ‘compelling’ evidence of a tacit agreement between the coastal States.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.