Peru and Chile await the ruling on its dispute marine boundaries

Question

Peru and Chile await the ruling on its dispute marine boundaries

Answer 1

The International Court of United Nations (ICJ) has nearly 70 years solving territorial disputes, and on Monday, Peru and Chile face a landmark ruling that will define the sovereignty of the waters in the Pacific Ocean.

The lawsuit, filed in 2008 against Santiago Lima asks judges to punish as a border line drawn equidistant from the coast. Seeks to divide equally the portion corresponding to each sea, and incorporates a fishing area of 38,000 square kilometers claimed by its neighbors.

The Chilean side, however, defends the current definition, ie, the parallel line that emanate from the Chilean - Peruvian treaties of 1952 and 1954. The positions seem irreconcilable, but the impending court decision has generated calls for caution. Discarded contempt, since the two parties have said they will accept the opinion of the ICJ, the resolution may serve to Peruvians and Chileans "build a different future together."

The phrase is Astrid Espaliat Chilean lawyer, legal adviser to the team featured in The Hague, the seat of the Court. Although the border is often difficult to assign struggles, she is not alone in his desire to neighborhood harmony. Jurists, historians and former politicians of the two nationalities underscore the desire to open a new phase in bilateral relations.

Rafael Roncagliolo, former Minister of Foreign Peruvian, has been the aseptically. In a lecture at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru (PUCP), described as " legal dispute, not political " situation. As if it were an answer, José RodrÃ_guez Elizondo, a lawyer and former Chilean diplomat, has stated that the newspaper El Comercio: " For those who think that after the legal cover there was always a problem of power, enforcement of the judgment should be part of a bilateral political will (...) once finished with border disputes, to bolster our efforts in development. "

Waiting for the reading of the decision, which must be borne by the Slovakian Peter Tomka, President of the ICJ, a review of the arguments of the two sides at the end of the process leaves blunt sentences. Here are some.

From the Peruvian delegation:

"Chile has not proved the existence of a maritime boundary treaty between our countries," said Allan Wagner, diplomatic agent of his country before the Court and ambassador to the Netherlands.

"Chile seems to show little interest with his position in the equity criterion on maritime delimitation " said Tullio Treves, a lawyer and expert on Law of the Sea

"I hope the ruling is favorable to Peru as it is a just cause " in the words of President Ollanta Humala, pronounced in his land.

From the Chilean delegation:

"The consequences of a maritime boundary change that has over 50 years would be very serious," said Alberto van Klaveren, lawyer, political scientist and diplomat agent of his country before the Court.

" Peru has been unable to present legal basis because there is an agreement establishing a provisional fishing line, if I do say so," said Samuel Wordsworth lawyer.

" Peru and Chile have a common future, will continue to be overlooked after the ruling," said Chilean Foreign Minister Alfredo Moreno.

The case of Peru against Chile, technically termed as demand has caused the reaction of Bolivia, the third neighbor in discord. La Paz takes a long century seeking out the lost sea in the Pacific War (1879-1883), fought against Chile. Peru ally in this war, the current Bolivian president, Evo Morales, has decided that the time had come to act. After carefully analyzing the events in The Hague, filed its own lawsuit in April 2013. Want to recover the 400 miles of coastline and 120,000 square kilometers of territory cut after the nineteenth-century defeat. To justify his action, Morales said Santiago sought " in good faith negotiations to form sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean."

Again, a Latin American president appealed to the benefits of the peaceful resolution of conflict marked by the ICJ since its founding, en1945. Anyway, despite court rulings often seek a balance for the parties (in 2009 was assigned to Costa Rica 's rights of navigation on the river San Juan, and management of river traffic to Nicaragua), the common future we all ensure search depends on both political and civil society. A binomial still crystallize, for example, in two pending cases. The clash again in Costa Rica and Nicaragua, respectively, for the construction of a canal to give the river, natural border shared a landlocked. And opening a road parallel to the river channel. Not forgetting the two claims of Nicaragua against Colombia for its maritime areas, after Bogotá in 2012 lost some of their rights in the Caribbean.