Reflections on international law and maritime delimitation. A commentary on the judgment Peru v. Chile of the International Court of Justice
Abstract
The judgment pronounced on the 27th of January 2014 by the International Court of Justice on the maritime dispute between Chile and Peru recognized the existence of a maritime boundary passing through the geographical parallel, which had been set by a tacit agreement between the Parties until 80 nautical miles. From that point until 200 nautical miles, the Court established a boundary de novo, by using the equidistance method in accordance with the subsidiary solution prescribed by International Maritime Law as the Court has interpreted it.Moreover, the judgment recognized the starting-point of the agreed boundary as the intersection of the geographical parallel passing through Boundary Marker nº 1 with the low-water line. Five declarations, &ve dissenting opinions – one individual and another common to four judges – and two separate opinions were enclosed to the judgment. %e proliferation of individual positions makes evident the existence of irreconcilable di'erences in the Court’s reasoning, which seem to indicate the adoption of a compromise solution without solid legal bases.
